Hampton v. Dodson

• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BUSSEY; TAYLOR, C. J., MOSS and LEWIS, JJ., and LEGGE
• Citation: Hampton v. Dodson, 126 S.E.2d 564, 240 S.C. 532 (S.C. 1962)
• Decision Date: 05 July 1962
• Docket Number: No. 17940,17940
• Parties: Frank HAMPTON et al., citizens and residents of the County of Richland, owning real and personal property in School District Number One of Richland County, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants, James L. DODSON et al., constituting the members of the Richland County Board of Assessment Control, et al., Respondents.

Page 564

126 S.E.2d 564

240 S.C. 532

Frank HAMPTON et al., citizens and residents of the County of Richland, owning real and personal property in School District Number One of Richland County, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Appellants James L. DODSON et al., constituting the members of the Richland County Board of Assessment Control, et al., Respondents.

No. 17940.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 5, 1962.

Going & Going, Fulmer, Barnes & Verner, Columbia, for appellants.

John W. Sholenberger, Edward A. Harter, Jr., Frank A. Graham, Jr., Charles B. Elliott, Columbia, for respondents.

BUSSEY, Justice.

In this action the appellants, taxpayers in School District No. 1 of Richland County, for themselves and all others similarly situated, seek to enjoin the respondents from proceeding with a real estate reassessment program in the said School District No. 1. The respondents are the members of the Richland County Board of Assessment Control, the Richland County Board of Assessment Appeals, the Tax Assessor for Richland County School District No. 1, and other public officials directly or indirectly concerned with the program.

The complaint alleges two causes of action. In the first cause of action appellants assail the consitutionality of Acts Nos. 952, 968 and 976 of the 1958 Acts of the General Assembly of South Carolina on various grounds and seek an injunction against the reassessment of property in said School District No. 1, undertaken pursuant to and following the enactment of said Acts. In the second cause of action the appellants contend that even if the Acts of the Legislature referred to in the first cause of action are valid and in harmony with the Constitution on their face, the administration of the said Acts violates the constitutional rights of the appellants, and on that ground seek to enjoin the respondents from proceeding with the reassessment program.

The answers of the respondents denied all of the material allegations of the complaint, and in addition plead in support of their position Act No. 557 of the 1960 Acts of the General Assembly of South Carolina and certain orders of the South Carolina Tax Commission ordering a reassessment of real estate in School District No. 1 of Richland County pursuant to Sec. 65-64(15) of the 1952 Code of Laws.

The cause was referred to the Master of Richland County who took considerable testimony and filed a comprehensive report in which he went fully into the factual situation and all legal and constitutional issues before him, and concluded and recommended that the complaint of the appellants be dismissed. Upon exceptions to the Report of the Master the circuit court, with certain minor modifications, affirmed the findings of fact and conclusions of law on the part of the Master and made the same the order and judgment of the court. The appeal here is from the order of the circuit court affirming the Master's Report.

Richland County has four school districts, numbers 1, 2, 5 and 6. Of the 765 square miles in the county, 130 square miles (or about 17% of the entire area of the county) are embraced in School District No. 1, Which includes the City of Columbia. The figures for 1960 show that approximately 89.6% of the assessed value of all real estate in the county is located in School District No. 1, this action having been commenced on April 13, 1960.

It fairly appears from the record that in 1960, and for sometime prior thereto, gross inequities and inequalities existed with respect to the assessment of real estate in School District No. 1. Act No. 952 of the 1958 Acts, here under attack, created the Richland County Board of Assessment Control; gave said board certain duties and powers with respect to the assessment of all taxable property within School District No. 1, only, of Richland County; provided for the employment of certain personnel, and particularly for a tax assessor for School District No. 1 to be employed by the board; and transferred to said tax assessor all powers, duties and privileges of the Board of Tax Assessors, Board of Township Assessors and chairmen of boards of assessors so far as they related to the assessment and valuation of property in School District No. 1, subject, however, to policies determined by the Board. Said Act also created the Richland County Board of Assessment Appeals with countywide jurisdiction and transferred to said new board the powers and duties of the Richland County Board of Equalization.

Act No. 968 amended various sections of the 1952 Code so as to fully effect the change of duties and powers to the new boards and the assessor created by Act No. 952. The appellants in their brief abandoned all questions as to the constitutionality of Act No. 968. Act No. 976 primarily made certain provisions for the returns of real estate and improvements for the purpose of taxation in Richland County.

In an effort to bring about the desired equalization of taxes on real property with School District No. 1 of Richland County, the South Carolina Tax Commission issued three orders, dated respectively September 9, 1958, August 4, 1959 and March 4, 1960. While there are some differences in said orders, the principal reason for the successive orders was that it became necessary to extend the time in which the reassessment was to be completed. The final order extended the time of final completion to January 1, 1962, and further ordered the completed tax rolls delivered to the Richland County Auditor prior to March 1, 1962. All of these orders were issued pursuant to the provisions of Section 65-64(15) of the 1952 Code, which reads as follows:

'65-64. Powers of Commission.

'The Commission shall have and exercise all the powers conferred by law upon the former State Board of Equalization and upon the former State Board of Assessors prior to February 20 1915 and: * * *

'(15) Shall order reassessment of real and personal property, or any class or classes of either, in any assessment district when, in the judgment of the Commission, such reassessment is advisable or necessary to the end that all classes of property in such assessment district shall be assessed in compliance with the law and for that purpose may require the assessors making the original assessment to make such reassessment or, if the Commission deem it advisable, it may appoint a special county assessor and deputy assessors under him to reassess all or any real or personal property, or any class or classes of either, in any assessment district, whether or not the same has been equalized by any board, the county board of equalization or the Commission;'

Pursuant to the order of the Tax Commission of September 9, 1958, and the Acts of the Legislature hereinabove referred to, the reassessment of real estate within School District No. 1 of Richland County was undertaken. The Board of Assessment Control, as authorized by Act No. 952, employed a tax assessor and certain other trained personnel who, in a scientific manner, commenced evaluation of all real property within School District No. 1.

These trained appraisers, in evaluating or appraising real property in School District No. 1 preparatory to arriving at final assessment figures, considered numerous elements such as comparable sales, cost, original cost less depreciation, replacement cost, income, highest and best use of the property, etc. None of these elements are being considered controlling as to the final assessment figures but are being used, according to the undisputed testimony, merely as approaches to the fair valuation of all real property within the district and as an aid to arriving at final assessment figures which will as nearly as possible equalize assessments not only within School District No. 1, but equalize them with respect to real property in districts other than District 1.

No reassessment program is being undertaken with trained appraisal personnel in other school districts of Richland County.

While sundry constitutional questions are raised, the gravamen of the complaint of the appellants is as follows:

1. That while the method adopted by the respondents in assessing property in School District No. 1 'may be considerably more scientific, more logical, more efficient and even more plausible or reasonable' such efficiency will result in the unequal valuation and assessment of property for tax purposes in School District No. 1 and that as a result, taxpayers of School District No. 1 will bear a greater burden with respect county-wise millage than will taxpayers in other districts in the county.

2. That the tax money being expended for the reassessment program within School District No. 1 is being illegally and unconstitutionally expended.

3. That all of the taxpayers of Richland County and particularly the taxpayers of School District No. 1 are being discriminated against with respect to the required returns of real estate for the purpose of assessment.

The Transcript of Record contains nineteen exceptions to the order of the circuit court, and the appellants in their brief set forth and argue twenty-two questions. Some of the nineteen exceptions have been expressly abandoned and others have been abandoned by the failure of appellants to argue the same in their brief.

Under these circumstances, it is not easy to concisely state the issues which are properly before this court on appeal, but, in the view that we take of the matter, it is not necessary to do so. It is important, however, to point out certain issues that are not before this court.

The appellants have expressly abandoned all exceptions challenging the constitutionality of Act No. 968, and frankly state that 'We have no quarrel with Act 952 of that year if its title is sufficient, so far as it sets up a Board of Assessment Control and provides for employment of a tax assessor and assistants.'

Exception No. 17 is the only exception which challenges the findings of fact of the...