Norfolk v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 21 September 1933
• Citation: 161 Va. 288
• Parties: CITY OF NORFOLK v. L. SNYDER.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 288

161 Va. 288

CITY OF NORFOLK v. L. SNYDER.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Staunton.

September 21, 1933.

Present, Campbell, C.J., and Holt, Epes, Hudgins, Gregory and Browning, JJ.

1. TAXATION — Assessment — Fair Market Value — Uniformity. — The primary consideration is to procure an assessment of property, (a) at its fair market value, and (b) one that will be uniform upon the same class.

2. TAXATION — Fair Market Value — Meaning of Fair Market Value. — The fair market value of property is the price it will bring when offered for sale by one who desires but is not obliged to sell, and is bought by one who is under no necessity of having it.

3. TAXATION — Assessment — Equality in Assessment. — Securing equality in the assessments of property for taxation has many difficulties and no machinery has yet been devised by which these difficulties may be fully overcome.

4. TAXATION — Assessment — Presumption in Favor of an Assessment. — There is a clear presumption in favor of the assessment as made by the assessors and the burden is upon those who seek relief to show that the value as fixed is excessive or out of proportion to other like surrounding property.

5. TAXATION — Assessment — Ascertaining Value of Property. — There is no statute in Virginia providing a rule by which assessors should be guided in ascertaining the fair market value of property. It is common knowledge that different persons, equally well qualified, use different methods in fixing a value on property.

6. TAXATION — Assessment — Fair Market Value — Questions of Law and Fact. — Generally the question as to whether an applicant's property in any particular case has been assessed at more than its fair market value, or out of proportion to other like property, presents a question of fact to be decided by the assessors or the local board of equalization and the result fairly arrived at by them should not be disturbed by the court unless the applicant has carried the burden of showing clearly that the assessment is excessive or out of proportion to that of other like property.

7. TAXATION — Assessment — Conclusions of Assessors and Board of Equalization Not Disturbed Unless There Has Been Manifest Error. — The conclusions of the assessors and the board of equalization upon the value of property assessed for taxation will not be disturbed unless it appears that there has been a manifest error in the manner of making the estimate, or that evidence which should be controlling has been disregarded.

8. TAXATION — Assessment — Difference of Opinion Among Witnesses as to Value of Property — Case at Bar. — The instant case was an application for the correction of an alleged erroneous assessment of real property. There was no accurate standard by which the value of the property might be determined and necessarily the evidence must be based upon opinion, which with reasonable and qualified men does differ, yet so long as the assessment comes within the range of a reasonable difference of opinion, as it did in the instant case, when considered in the light of the presumption in its favor, it cannot be said that the assessment is erroneous. The most that could be said is that there is a difference of opinion among the witnesses as to the value of the applicant's property which ranges from estimates below to estimates above the value fixed by the assessors.

Held: That the evidence was insufficient to show that the assessment was erroneous.

Error to a judgment of the Corporation Court, Part Two, of the city of Norfolk, in a proceeding to correct an erroneous assessment of taxes. Judgment for applicant. Defendant assigns error.

The opinion states the case.

John N. Sebrell and Jonathan W. Old, Jr., for the plaintiff in error.

Louis B. Fine, for the defendant in error.

GREGORY, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

L. Snyder filed his application in the Corporation Court of the city of Norfolk, alleging that real property owned by him in that city, known as 600-610 Plume street, was erroneously assessed for taxation, by the land assessors at the general assessment of real estate in 1930, and asking that the assessment be reduced. The assessment of this real estate was fixed by the assessors at $25,820 for the land and $2,000 for the buildings. The assessment so fixed was approved by the local board of equalization. The corporation court, after hearing the evidence, reduced the assessment on the land from $25,820 to $18,000, and entered its order carrying the reduced assessment into effect.

The evidence is composed entirely of the testimony of men who qualify as experts on the value of real estate in Norfolk and the testimony of the assessors themselves, who are also experts in this field. The testimony of the assessors is confined to the value of the property in 1930, the time the general assessment was made, while the testimony of the witnesses who testified for the applicant, and who were employed by him, base their estimates of the value as of the latter part of the year 1931, a year after the assessments had been made.

The assessment was worked out and computed on a value of $165 per front foot and the uncontradicted evidence shows conclusively that the value placed on the property on the front foot basis and otherwise, bears a just and fair relation to the assessments which the assessors made of the adjoining and surrounding properties, some of which were assessed at $175 to $250 per front foot. The testimony for the city shows the value of applicant's property to have been, in 1930, from $165 to $200 per front foot, while the testimony of the witnesses for the applicant show it to have been approximately $75 per front foot.

The corporation court expressly discarded the...