ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter came before me pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540 (Supp. 1995) for a
contested hearing requested by W. Marshall Lindsay ("taxpayer") against the Spartanburg County
Assessor ("Assessor"), contesting the Assessor's valuation of taxpayer's property located at 201
Navaho Drive, Spartanburg, South Carolina. The taxpayer exhausted all prehearing remedies with
the Assessor and the Spartanburg County Board of Assessment Appeals and now seeks a contested
case hearing before the Administrative Law Judge Division. After notice to the parties, a hearing
was held on January 15, 1999.
The Assessor originally valued the taxpayer's property at $93,500 for tax year 1998. The
taxpayer timely appealed the assessment and, after a conference with the taxpayer, the Assessor
adjusted the property value to $80,330. The taxpayer then appealed the revised assessment to the
Spartanburg County Board of Assessment Appeals ("Board"). The Board concluded that the proper
value was $80,330. The taxpayer asserts that this value is too high in view of the structural damage
to the interior and exterior of the house and the drainage problems on his lot. After a thorough
review of all evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, I find that the property should be
valued at $64,830 for tax year 1998, of which $9,500 is attributable to the land and $55,330 is
attributable to the value of the house.
FINDINGS OF FACT
After consideration and review of all the testimony, and the evidence submitted at the
hearing, by a preponderance of the evidence, I make the following findings:
1. This Division has personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
2. Notice of the date, time, place and nature of the hearing was timely given to all
parties.
3. The taxpayer is the owner of the parcel of real property that bears Parcel Id (PID) #6-21-10-076.00, located at 201 Navaho Drive in the Woodland Heights subdivison in Spartanburg,
South Carolina. Upon the property is a one-story, four bedroom, two and one-half bath house
consisting of approximately 1,856 square feet of living space.
4. Woodland Heights is located off Reidville Road in the City of Spartanburg.
5. The Spartanburg County Assessor appraised the subject property for tax year 1998
at $93,500. The taxpayer appealed this appraisal. After a conference with the taxpayer, the Assessor
adjusted the value to $80,330. The taxpayer appealed the revised appraisal to the Spartanburg
County Board of Assessment Appeals.
6. The Spartanburg County Board of Assessment Appeals concluded that the proper
value of the property should be $80,330.
7. Applying the cost approach, the Assessor determined the cost to replace the
taxpayer's house would be $83,520, based on a construction cost of $45 per square foot, plus
allowances for the utility room, garage, and porches. After subtracting for depreciation and adding
in the value of the site and the site improvements, the indicated value for the taxpayer's property was
$88,112.
8. Applying the market sales approach, the Assessor used three comparables to arrive
at the fair market value to be placed on the taxpayer's property. By comparing the subject property
with three other properties in the Woodland Heights subdivision, one of which is across the street
and two of which are no more than two blocks away, the indicated value of the taxpayer's property
was $82,000.
9. The Assessor's final appraisal determined the value of the taxpayer's property to be
$80,330.
10. The taxpayer asserts that this appraisal is too high considering the structural damage
to the interior and exterior of his home and the drainage problems on his lot. In support of this
assertion, the taxpayer submitted pictures of his house and land. The taxpayer states that an
appropriate value for his property would be $40,000, but he submitted no comparable sales,
appraisals, or other evidence to support that value.
15. The Spartanburg County Assessor hired two licensed contractors to do an inspection on
the subject property. These inspections were done by Mr. John Brasher of RCR Development, Inc.
and Mr. Len Reed of Len Reed Construction, Inc. Their inspection reports indicated the following
damage to the house and land: cracks in the foundation of the house, drainage problems on the land,
water damage in the basement, rotten windows and eaves, cracks in the ceilings of several rooms in
the house, cracks in the bathroom tile, and moisture in the ceilings of several rooms. The
contractors concluded that the property needed general maintenance repairs. The estimates for these
repairs ranged from $10,000 to $15,500.
16. Upon consideration of all the evidence, I find that the proper value of the taxpayer's
property should be $64,830, of which $9,500 is attributable to the land and $55,330 is attributable
to the value of the house.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, I conclude, as a matter of law, the following:
1. S.C. Code Ann. §12-60-2540 (Supp. 1995) authorizes the South Carolina
Administrative Law Judge Division to hear contested cases pursuant to Chapter 23 of Title 1 of the
1976 Code, as amended.
2. An assessor's valuation is presumed correct with the burden being on the property
owner to disprove the assessor's valuation. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 410 (1954).
3. A taxpayer contesting an assessment has the burden of showing that the valuation of
the taxing authority is incorrect. Ordinarily, this would be done by proving the actual value of the
property. The taxpayer may, however, show by other evidence that the assessing authority's
valuation is incorrect. If he does so, the presumption of correctness is removed and the taxpayer is
entitled to appropriate relief. Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 367 S.E.2d 171 (Ct. App. 1988).
4. S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-930 (Supp. 1995) provides that real property must be valued
as follows:
All real property must be valued for taxation at its true value in
money which in all cases is the price which the property would bring
following reasonable exposure to the market, where both the seller
and buyer are willing, are not acting under compulsion, and are
reasonably well informed as to the uses and purposes for which it is
adapted and for which it is capable for being used.
5. Fair market value is the measure of true value for taxation purposes. Lindsey v. S.C.
Tax Comm'n, 302 S.C. 504, 397 S.E.2d 95 (1990). There is no valid distinction between market
value for sales purposes and market value for taxation purposes under S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-930.
S.C. Tax Comm'n v. S.C. Tax Board of Review, 287 S.C. 415, 339 S.E.2d 131 (Ct. App. 1985).
6. The market value of $64,830 is amply supported by the Spartanburg County
Assessor's Redetermined Appraisal and Assessment and the estimates of damage repairs given by
the licensed contractors which were hired by Assessor.
7. In the Initial Appraisal, the Assessor appraised the land at $20,000 and the house at
$73,500. In the Redetermined Appraisal, the Assessor reduced the value of the land to $9,500 and
the value of the house to $70,830.
8. I find that $9,500 is a reasonable value for the land. The Assessor obviously reduced
the value because of the extensive drainage problems on the land.
9. However, I find that $70,830 is not a reasonable value for the house. The Assessor
only reduced the value by $2,670 in the Redetermined Appraisal. As evidenced by the contractors'
inspection, the house needs extensive general maintenance repairs, and the reduced value of the
house in the Redetermined Appraisal does not adequately take into account the cost of these repairs.
The only evidence in the record concerning the estimated cost of the repairs is the inspection reports
of the licensed contractors hired by the Assessor. The contractors estimated that these repairs would
cost between $10,000 and $15,500. Considering the amount of repairs that needs to be done, I find
that $15,500 is a reasonable value for the repairs.
10. The Redetermined Appraisal value of the house ($70,830) should be reduced by
$15,500 to take into account the cost of repairing the damage to the house.
11. Therefore, I find that the reasonable value of the house is $55,330.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the Assessor shall value the taxpayer's property, identified as PID #6-21-10-076.00, at $64,830 for tax year 1998.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
Marvin F. Kittrell
Chief Judge
May 3, 1999
Columbia, South Carolina
|
