Appeal of Jepsen

• Decision Date: 28 December 1956
• Docket Number: Nos. 9549-9553,s. 9549-9553
• Citation: 76 S.D. 421,80 N.W.2d 76
• Parties: In the Matter of the Appeal of Marvin V. JEPSEN from the Decision of the Pennington County, South Dakota, Board of Equalization. In the Matter of the Appeal of Victor T. JEPSEN and H. F. Fellows from the Decision of the Pennington County, South Dakota, Board of Equalization. In the Matter of the Appeal of Victor T. JEPSEN from the Decision of the Pennington County, South Dakota, Board of Equalization. In the Matter of the Appeal of WECCO, Inc., from the Decision of the Pennington County, South Dakota, Board of Equalization. In the Matter of the Appeal of Chester W. and Margaret E. RUSSELL from the Decision of the Pennington County, South Dakota, Board of Equalization.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

Page 76

80 N.W.2d 76

76 S.D. 421

In the Matter of the Appeal of Marvin V. JEPSEN from the

Decision of the Pennington County, South Dakota,

Board of Equalization.

In the Matter of the Appeal of Victor T. JEPSEN and H. F.

Fellows from the Decision of the Pennington

County, South Dakota, Board of Equalization.

In the Matter of the Appeal of Victor T. JEPSEN from the

Decision of the Pennington County, South Dakota,

Board of Equalization.

In the Matter of the Appeal of WECCO, Inc., from the

Decision of the Pennington County, South Dakota,

Board of Equalization.

In the Matter of the Appeal of Chester W. and Margaret E.

RUSSELL from the Decision of the Pennington

County, South Dakota, Board of Equalization.

Nos. 9549-9553.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Dec. 28, 1956.

Rehearing Denied March 11, 1957.

Leonard E. Morrison and Robert W. Gunderson, Rapid City, for Rapid City and Pennington County, defendants and appellants.

Bangs & McCullen and H. F. Fellows, Rapid City, for plaintiffs and respondents.

RUDOLPH, Judge.

These cases are appeals from the Circuit Court of Pennington County reducing the assessment for taxation of certain property in Rapid City. The city and county boards of equalization had refused any reduction in the assessment and the taxpayers appealed to the circuit court. The city and county have now appealed to this court.

In 1952 Rapid City entered into a contract with J. L. Jacobs and Company of Chicago to assist the City Assessor and the City Commission in the appraisal and equalization of assessments of property in Rapid City. The Jacobs Company entered upon its work and after consultation and with the advice of an advisory committee appointed by the Mayor, the appraisal of property was made. This advisory committee was composed of business men in Rapid City who were familiar generally with real estate conditions and market values in Rapid City. Most of the work of the committee related to the value of the land, but it functioned to some extent with the valuation of buildings. However, the valuation of the buildings was determined largely by a manual worked out for the city by the Jacobs Company. The buildings were all measured, classified as to construction and other details and a formula prescribed by the manual applied. It appears that the value of all property in Rapid City was based by the assessor upon the appraisal made by the Jacobs Company.

The value as determined by the Jacobs Company was reduced by the assessor to 37% thereof, and such value as fixed by the assessor became the appraised value of the property in Rapid City for taxation purposes.

At the trial in circuit court the protesting taxpayers introduced evidence of the 'true and full value in money' of their property, which in all instances was substantially below the value placed thereon by the Jacobs Company and in some instances lower than the assessed valuation. The city and county introduced no evidence of the value of the property other than the value placed thereon by Jacobs, and the assessor's value which was 37% thereof.

Article XI, Sec. 2 of the Constitution of South Dakota provides in part, 'Taxes shall be uniform on all property of the same class, * * *' and the valuation of property for taxation purposes shall never exceed the actual value thereof. SDC 57.0334 provides: 'All property shall be assessed at its true and full value in money.' "True and full value" is defined by SDC 57.0301, as 'the usual cash selling price at the place where the property to which the term is applied shall be at the time of the assessment.' SDC 57.0406 empowers the county equalization board to correct mistakes or gross inequalities made by the assessor. 'Gross inequality' as used in this section means, 'where adjoining property of the same class is assessed at a much higher or lower amount, according to its value, than other adjoining property in the same assessment district, * * *'.

Giving effect to these constitutional and statutory provisions we have held that where property is assessed at more than its actual value the taxpayer is entitled to relief though there is no proof that a reduction is necessary to effect uniformity with other property of the same class. Williams v. Stanley County, 69 S.D. 118, 7 N.W.2d 148. We have also held the taxpayer is entitled to relief where property is assessed at more than 'its true and full value in money.' Tidball v. Miller, 72 S.D. 243, 32 N.W.2d 683. We have also held that a taxpayer is entitled to relief, without regard to 'actual value' or 'true and full value in money' if the assessment lacks uniformity and is grossly inequitable. In re Robinson, 73 S.D. 580, 46 N.W.2d 908. If discrimination exists the remedy of the taxpayer is the reduction of his valuation to such an amount as may be necessary to remove the discrimination. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Young, 60 S.D. 291, 244 N.W. 370.

The trial court by its findings simply found the value of the taxpayers' property in accord with their testimony which it reduced to 37% for the purpose of determining the appraised value for taxation. By its memorandum opinion the...