South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Richard O. Westfall vs. Richland County Assessor

AGENCY:
Richland County Assessor

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
Richard O. Westfall

Respondents:
Richland County Assessor
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
06-ALJ-17-0041-CC

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

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.[1] 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



[1] The “cost” approach, another appraisal method, was not employed in this case based upon the age of the subject property.


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court