NEPA Ventures, LLC v. Spartanburg Cnty. Assessor

• Docket Number: 21-ALJ-17-0522-CC
• Decision Date: 29 August 2022
• Parties: NEPA Ventures, LLC, Petitioner, v. Spartanburg County Assessor, Respondent.
• Court: South Carolina Administrative Law Court Decisions

1

NEPA Ventures, LLC, Petitioner, v. Spartanburg County Assessor, Respondent.

No. 21-ALJ-17-0522-CC

South Carolina Administrative Law Court Decisions

August 29, 2022

For Petitioners: Abigail Budd Walsh, Esquire, Christopher L Murphy, Esquire

For Respondent: Shane William Rogers, Esquire

ORDER

ROBERT L. REIBOLD ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This matter comes before the Administrative Law Court (the ALC or the Court) following a request for a contested case hearing pursuant to section 12-60-2540 of the South Carolina Code (2014) and section 1-23-600(B) of the South Carolina Code (Supp. 2021). NEPA Ventures, LLC, (Petitioner or NEPA) challenges the determination of the Spartanburg County Assessor (Respondent or the Assessor) that Petitioner was not entitled to a reassessment and corresponding reduction in the 2019 taxable values for four parcels containing the Westar Travel Plaza located on Truckstop Road, Cowpens, South Carolina 29330 (collectively, the Parcels).^[1] Specifically, the Assessor declined NEPA's request to reappraise the Parcels after the South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) filed a condemnation action in March 2019 on approximately 1.373 acre portion of the Parcels (the Condemned Property)^[2] for a road widening project on Interstate 85 that closed an exit ramp off of which the Parcels are located. The Assessor determined the Condemnation Action was filed after the tax closing date of December 31, 2018, and therefore, could have no effect on "2019 taxes," or taxes payable in 2019 due as a result of the Petitioner's ownership of the Condemned Property in 2018. Subsequently, Petitioner appealed to the Spartanburg County Board of Assessment Appeals (the Board) which upheld the Assessor's decision.

On December 15, 2021, Petitioner filed a request for a contested case hearing with the Court. The matter was assigned to the undersigned on January 5, 2022.^[3] On February 16, 2022, the undersigned noticed a hearing on the merits for April 21 2022. The Assessor filed an unopposed motion for continuance on March 7, 2022. On March 11, 2022, the undersigned granted the motion for continuance, and the hearing on the merits was rescheduled for August 18, 2022. The Assessor filed a motion for summary judgment on July 1, 2022. NEPA filed a cross motion for summary judgment on July 19, 2022. On August 2, 2022, NEPA filed a motion to request the Court take judicial notice of tax records and requests from NEPA to the Assessor to reduce property taxes on the Parcels by 20% for the 2020 and 2021 tax years. A hearing on the motions was held on August 5, 2022. At the hearing, the Assessor consented to NEPA's motion for judicial notice for the purposes of the hearing. NEPA conceded at the hearing that it was not seeking a reduction in taxes due as a result of its ownership of the Condemned Property in 2018.^[4]

APPLICABLE LAW

The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to sections 1-23-600(B) and 12-60-2540 of the South Carolina Code. While this matter reaches the Court somewhat in the posture of an appeal, the proceeding before the Court is a de novo contested case hearing. See Smith v. Newberry Cnty. Assessor, 350 S.C. 572, 577, 567 S.E.2d 501, 504 (Ct. App. 2002) ("When a tax assessment case reaches the AL[C] in this posture [, upon appeal from a county board decision], the proceeding in front of the AL[C] is a de novo hearing."); see also Reliance Ins. Co. v. Smith, 327 S.C. 528, 534, 489 S.E.2d 674, 677 (Ct. App. 1997) ("[When] a case involving a property tax assessment reaches the AL[C] in the posture of an appeal, the AL[C] is not sitting in an appellate capacity and is not restricted to a review of the decision below. Instead, the proceeding before the AL[C] is in the nature of a de novo hearing.").

The applicable standard of proof in this contested case hearing is a preponderance of the evidence. See Anonymous v. State Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 329 S.C. 371, 378, 496 S.E.2d 17, 20 (1998); see also DIRECTV, Inc. & Subsidiaries v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 421 S.C. 59, 78, 804 S.E.2d 633, 643 (Ct. App. 2017) ("The standard of proof in an administrative hearing of a contested case is by a preponderance of the evidence."). In a contested case hearing before the ALC, the party contesting the decision of the Board has the burden of proof. See Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 88, 367 S.E.2d 171, 173 (Ct. App. 1988) ("A taxpayer contesting an assessment has the burden of showing that the valuation of the taxing authority is incorrect.").

SCALC Rule 68 provides this Court may, at its discretion, apply the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure in contested case proceedings when no ALC rule applies. This Court has determined that application of Rule 56(c), SCRCP, is proper in this case. Rule 56(c) states summary judgment is properly granted when the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." "In determining whether summary judgment is proper, the court must construe all ambiguities, conclusions, and inferences arising from the evidence against the moving party." Byers v. Westinghouse Electr. Corp., 310 S.C. 5, 7, 425 S.E.2d 23, 24 (1992). "[I]n cases applying the preponderance of evidence burden of proof, the non-moving party is only required to submit a mere scintilla of evidence in order to withstand a motion for summary judgment." Hancock v. Mid-S. Mgmt. Co., 381 S.C. 326, 330, 673 S.E.2d 801, 803 (2009). However, "when plain, palpable, and indisputable facts exist on which reasonable minds cannot differ, summary judgment should be granted." Bayle v. S.C. Dep't of Transp., 344 S.C. 115, 120, 542 S.E.2d 736, 738 (Ct. App. 2001).

DISCUSSION

I. Undisputed Facts

The following facts are undisputed:

1. On April 4, 2017, Petitioner purchased four contiguous parcels on Truck Stop Road Cowpens, South Carolina 29330. The Parcels contain a truck stop.^[5]

2. The Assessor issued property tax notices to Petitioner for the Parcels for tax year 2019 based on a tax control date of December 31, 2018.

3. On March 25, 2019, SCDOT filed a notice of condemnation and lis pendens on approximately 1.373 acres of the Parcels for a road widening project of Interstate 85. This SCDOT project resulted in closure of southbound Exit 83 to Truckstop Road, the exit ramp off which the truck stop is located, and effectively made the front entrance of the truck stop the rear of the property.

4. On August 1, 2019, Petitioner filed an informal appeal to challenge the Parcels' fair market values and the associated property tax assessments with the Assessor.

5. By letter dated November 25, 2019, the Assessor informed Petitioner that no change would be made to the 2019 taxable values or assessments because of the informal appeal.

6. On December 18, 2019, Petitioner submitted a real property tax protest form for the Parcels. On March 6, 2020, the Assessor sent Petitioner a notice of final action, finding that the March 2019 condemnation had no impact on the 2019 taxable values because they were based on a December 31, 2018 tax control date, and no changes would be made to the taxable values or assessments of the Parcels. By letter dated March 26, 2020, Petitioner advised the Assessor of its intent to appeal.

7. On or about September 29, 2020, the Assessor's appraiser informed Petitioner that the Board would hold a hearing on the 2019 tax appeal after the condemnation case reached a final resolution. Petitioner responded on December 8, 2020, requesting an adjustment to the property tax bills for the Parcels to reflect 80% of the total tax bill owed for 2020 pursuant to section 12-60-2550 of the South Carolina Code (2014), and demanding that the Board hear its appeal in accordance with section 12-60-2530 of the South Carolina Code (2014). In response, the Assessor reduced the property tax bills on the Parcels by 20% for 2020.

8. On August 6, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the Assessor in circuit court requesting that the court order the Assessor to schedule the conference and to hold the hearing on Petitioner's appeal of the 2019 property taxes. Petitioner sent another letter dated August 24, 2021, requesting adjustment to the property tax bills by 20% for the 2021 tax year and advised the Assessor of the filing of the writ of mandamus. The Assessor adjusted the Parcels' property tax bills by 20% for 2021.

9. The Board conducted a hearing on Petitioner's 2019 tax appeal on November 9, 2021. On November 23, 2021, the Board provided Petitioner with a decision upholding the 2019 assessment on the grounds that the March 2019 condemnation action occurred after the tax control date of December 31, 2018.

10. On May 22, 2022, the condemnation notice and tender of payment for the Condemned Property was recorded with the Spartanburg County Register of Deeds.

II. The Assessor's Motion for Summary Judgment

Relying primarily upon section 12-37-610 of the South Carolina Code (2014), the Assessor argues the Court should enter summary judgment in its favor. This section provides the following:

Each person is liable to pay taxes and assessments on the real property that, as of December thirty-first of the year preceding the tax year, he owns in fee, for life, or as trustee, as recorded in the public records for deeds of the county in which the property is located, or on the real property that, as of December thirty-first of the year preceding the tax year, he has care of as guardian, executor, or committee or may have the care of as guardian, executor, trustee, or committee.

Id. The tax closing date for "2019 ...