Robinson, In re, 9158
| Decision Date | 26 March 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 9158,9158 |
| Citation | 46 N.W.2d 908,73 S.D. 580 |
| Parties | In re ROBINSON et al. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
R. W. Hutchinson, Huron, for appellants, City of Huron and Beadle county.
Royhl & Benson, Huron, for respondents, Parke D. Robinson, Douglas Rees, et al.
Parke D. Robinson, Douglas Rees, et al., are the owners of Lot 1 and part of Lot 2, Block 15, Second Railway Addition to Huron, Beadle County. The above property was assessed for the year 1949 as follows: Structure, $60,000, real estate $14,715; total $74,715. The owners petitioned for a reduction in the valuation of the structures, but the petition was denied and appeal was taken to the circuit court. The cause was tried de novo. Findings and judgment were entered reducing the assessed valuation of the structures to $57,000. The city of Huron and the county of Beadle then appealed to this court.
Appellants contend first, that the valuation of respondents' property as determined by the circuit court is less than its actual value and second, that the court created or increased gross inequalities by reducing the assessed valuation of the structures from $60,000 to $57,000.
The circuit court concluded as a matter of law that the assessed valuation of the property 'as fixed by the Boards of Equalization in the sum of Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000.00) for the tax year of 1949, is excessive, inequitable and discriminatory and results in a lack of uniformity between such property and other property of the same class', and that the property be assessed at a value of $57,000. The decision of the circuit court is based upon this conclusion, not upon any determination that the equalized value of $60,000 exceeded the actual value of the property. The only question here presented then is whether the assessment as determined by the circuit court is much lower in amount according to value than other property of the same class in the same taxing district. If so, the assessment lacks uniformity, S.D. Const. XI, Sec. 2, and is grossly inequitable, SDC 57.0406; Williams v. Stanley County Board of Equalization, 69 S.D. 118, 7 N.W.2d 148. If such a condition exists in this case 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.
These appeals are heard and determined de novo in the circuit court. SDC 12.0620. The powers of the circuit court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fall River County v. South Dakota Dept. of Revenue
...St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Co. v. Bd. of Commissioners of Walworth County, 248 N.W.2d 386, 391 (S.D.1976) (citing In re Robinson, 73 S.D. 580, 46 N.W.2d 908 (1951)). ¶11 Interestingly, the trial court in this case differentiated between taxpayer appeals and appeals brought by a subdivisi......
-
Baken Park, Inc. v. Pennington County
...how to proceed * * *'. The court has had occasion to consider tax assessment appeals in Williams v. Stanley County, supra; In re Robinson, 73 S.D. 580, 46 N.W.2d 908 and Sheraton-Midcontinent Corporation v. Pennington County, 77 S.D. 554, 95 N.W.2d 892. We see no reason to depart from them.......
-
Yadco, Inc. v. Yankton County
...previously stated that this court was to determine whether there was 'substantial evidence' to support the verdict. See In re Robinson, 1951, 73 S.D. 580, 46 N.W.2d 908; Rau v. Fritz, Subsequent to these cases, however, the court adopted RCP 52(a) (now SDCL 15--6--52(a)) which states in par......
-
Sheraton-Midcontinent Corp. v. Pennington County
...if the same is in excess of actual value. Williams v. Stanley County Board of Equalization, 69 S.D. 118, 7 N.W.2d 148; In re Robinson, 73 S.D. 580, 46 N.W.2d 908; Appeal of Margulies, 75 S.D. 36, 58 N.W.2d Appellants place much stress on the presumption that the assessor's valuation is corr......