ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This
contested case is an appeal from the Richland County Board of Assessment
Appeals’ decision to uphold the Respondent’s assessment of Petitioner’s home in
Richland County. After notice of the date, time, place and nature of the
hearing was given to all parties, this matter came before the Court on August
29, 2006. Present at the hearing were the Petitioner, Richard O. Westfall, Pro
Se, Bradley T. Farrar, Attorney for the Respondent, Steve McFaddin, Appraiser
for the Richland County Assessor, and Terry Fancey, Deputy Richland County
Assessor.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
As
part of its quadrennial County-wide reassessment program, Respondent initially
assigned a fair market value of $360,400 to Petitioner’s single family
residence at 4850 Portobello Road in Columbia for tax year 2004. Petitioner
requested and was granted a review conference, held on June 30, 2005, following
which Respondent reduced its estimate of fair market value to $334,500, based
on total depreciation of Petitioner’s property.
At
its hearing on December 13, 2005, the Richland County Board of Assessment
Appeals upheld Respondent’s valuation of $334,500 as a fair and equitable
assessment. This appeal followed.
ISSUE
What
is the appropriate market value of Petitioner’s real property located in Richland County, South Carolina, and is that value equitable as compared with like
surrounding properties?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based
on the parties’ Preliminary Tax Appeal Statements, testimony and evidence offered
at the hearing, and taking into consideration the burden of persuasion and the
credibility of the witnesses, I make the following findings of fact by a
preponderance of evidence:
(1) Petitioner
owns a parcel of property at 4850 Portobello Court, Columbia, South Carolina. The
twenty-nine (29) year old home on the property has approximately 3,016 square
feet of heated living area. The brick veneer home has four bedrooms, three and
a half bathrooms, a finished two-car garage, a patio and a finished open
porch.
(2)
Respondent offered testimony and a copy of its written Appraisal of
Petitioner’s property that included data from the “direct sales” appraisal
method and “equity comparisons” to arrive at the final valuation of $334,500. The
best approach to determining the fair market value of the property in this case
is the market or direct sales comparison approach. Comparisons of equity are
helpful in confirming valuation derived from market or direct sales.
(3) The
direct sales comparison sets forth three (3) sales contemporaneous with or
reasonably proximate to the appraisal date of the subject property to provide a
meaningful comparison of similar properties. “Sale One” is located at 4810 Portobello Road. It has 2,857 square feet of living area, a two-car garage and was
built in 1978. The May 30, 2000, sales price was $330,000, or $115.51 per
square feet.
“Sale
Two,” at 4840 Portobello Road, had a purchase price on July 10, 2003, of
$370,000, or $136.43 per square foot. The home, while smaller at 2,712 square
feet than Petitioner’s property, and having no garage, was built in 1850.
“Sale
Three” is located at 4700 Portobello Road. It has 4,070 heated square feet and
was built the same year as Petitioner’s home. It sold on October 6, 2000, for
$600,000, or $147.42 per square foot.
Petitioner’s
property, valued at $110.91 per square foot, had the lowest per square foot
value of all homes contained in the direct sales comparison portion of the
Appraisal.
(4) The
“Appeals of Equity” portion of the Appraisal set forth three (3) homes
comparable (the “comparables”) to Petitioner’s property. “Comparable One” is
located at 4865 Portobello Road. It has approximately the same square footage
and was built the same year as Petitioner’s home. The assessed value of “Comparable
One” was $369,893, or $123.50 per square foot.
“Comparable
Two” is located at 4844 Portobello Court. This home was built in 1986, is
significantly larger at 6,238 square feet of living area than Petitioner’s
property, and has a three-car garage. The assessed value of “Comparable Two”
was $972,719, or $155.93 per square foot.
Finally,
Comparable Three, located at 4825 Portobello Road, was built in 1980, has 2,588
square feet of finished living area and no garage. It was assessed at
$358,565, or $138.55 per square foot. As with the direct sales comparison, all
per square foot values for the comparables are in
excess
of Petitioner’s per square foot value.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based
upon the Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
(1) This
matter is properly before the Court pursuant to S.C. Code of Laws Ann. §§ 12-60-2510 et seq., “Appeals, Protests and Refunds for Property Valued by County Assessors.” A taxpayer may appeal a property tax assessment determination of a
county board of assessment appeals by requesting a contested hearing before the
Administrative Law Court, S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2540(A) (Supp. 2005). The
party contesting the assessing authority’s valuation bears the burden of proving
the actual value of the property at issue. Reliance Ins. Co. v. Smith,
327 S.C. 528, 534-535, 489 S.E.2d 674, 677-678 (Ct.App. 1997).
(2) The
taxable status of real property for a given year is to be determined as of
December 31st of the preceding tax year. S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-900
(Supp. 2005); Atkinson Dredging Company v. Thomas, 266 S.C. 361, 223
S.E.2d 592 (1976).
(3) S.C.
Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Supp. 2005) provides that:
All
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 the buyer are willing, are not acting
under compulsion, and are reasonably well informed of the uses and purposes for
which it is adapted and for which it is capable of being used…
Similarly, S.C. Const. art. III § 29 provides that:
All
taxes upon property, real and personal, shall be laid upon the actual value of
the property taxed, as the same shall be ascertained by an assessment made for
the purpose of laying such tax.
Therefore,
fair market value is the measure of true value for taxation purposes. Lindsey
v. S.C. Tax Comm’n, 302 S.C. 504, 507, 397 S.E.2d 95, 97 (1990). Market
value applies equally for sales purposes and 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, 418, 339 S.E.2d 131, 133 (Ct.App. 1985). The Court in Santee Oil
Co. v. Cox, 265 S.C. 270, 277, 217 S.E.2d 789, 793 (1975) noted
that:
Appraisal
is, of course, not an exact science and the precise weight to be given to any
factor is necessarily a matter of judgment, for the court, in the light of the
circumstances reflected by the evidence in the individual case.
Standards
within the appraisal industry generally support comparisons of sale price of
other similar properties in determining fair market price. See Appraisal
Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 367 (10th ed.
1992). See also Long Cove Home Owners’ Ass’n, Inc. v. Beaufort
County Tax Equalization Bd., 327 S.C. 135, 142, 488 S.E.2d 857, 861 (1997)
(“The ‘willing buyer/willing seller’ standard in [Section 12-37-930] is
hypothetical in nature and may be assumed when no actual market exists for a
particular parcel of land.”). I find and conclude that the evidence supports market
sales comparison as the best approach to determining the fair market value of
Petitioner’s property. See Smith v. Newberry County Assessor, 350 S.C. 572, 567 S.E.2d 501 (Ct. App. 2002).
(4) I
find and conclude that Petitioner’s home was fairly assessed and its true value
properly derived pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930.
(5) While
it may not be possible to attain complete equity and uniformity when valuing
property [see, e.g., Wasson v. Mayes, 252 S.C. 497, 167
S.E.2d 304 (1969)], I find and conclude that as an alternate and confirmatory check
on valuation, the comparables in this case were reasonably chosen to provide an
equity comparison such that Petitioner’s home was fairly and equitably assessed
pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-43-220.
ORDER
Based
upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the decision of the Richland County Board of
Assessment Appeals upholding the fair market value of $334,500 for Petitioner’s
property, and the assessment corresponding thereto, are AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO
ORDERED.
___________________________
JOHN D. MCLEOD
Administrative
Law Judge
November 14, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina
|