Sheraton-Midcontinent Corp. v. Pennington County, SHERATON-MIDCONTINENT

CourtSupreme Court of South Dakota
Writing for the CourtROBERTS
Citation77 S.D. 554,95 N.W.2d 892
PartiesCORPORATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF PENNINGTON and Rapid City, Defendants and Appellants.
Decision Date16 April 1959
Docket NumberNo. 9755,SHERATON-MIDCONTINENT

Page 892

95 N.W.2d 892
77 S.D. 554
SHERATON-MIDCONTINENT CORPORATION, Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
COUNTY OF PENNINGTON and Rapid City, Defendants and
Appellants.
No. 9755.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
April 16, 1959.

[77 S.D. 555] James H. Wilson, Leonard E. Morrison, Rapid City, for defendants and appellants.

Bottum & Beal, Rapid City, Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith, Sioux Falls, for plaintiff and respondent.

ROBERTS, Judge.

Respondent is the owner of the Sheraton-Johnson Hotel in Rapid City, Pennington County. The 1956 assessment fixed the value of the land at $59,985, the structure at $813,485, and the personal property at $77,470. The city and county boards of equalization denied petitions for reductions and the owner appealed to the circuit court. Following a trial de novo the circuit court [77 S.D. 556] reduced the assessed value of the structure to $566,383, and confirmed the assessed value of the personal property as made by the assessor. There appears to have been no controversy concerning the assessment of the land. The city and county have appealed from the judgment of the circuit court.

Appellants contend that the evidence is insufficient to justify the finding of the court that the assessed value of the hotel structure for 1956 was in excess of its true and full value in money and that the court erred in granting the reduction. Their contentions more specifically are (1) that the complaining taxpayer did not overcome the presumption that the assessor's valuation was correct and not excessive; (2) that the sale price of the property nine years prior to the assessment did not furnish a substantial basis for evaluation; and (3) that the assessor ascertains the valuation of property for taxation purposes in Pennington County by analyzing replacement costs, comparative sales, and capitalization of income which is a generally accepted method of evaluating property and that from the evidence the court should have found that such a formula was fairly and impartially applied in 1956 to the hotel structure.

The standard of valuation prescribed by statute at the time of the assessment here in question was that 'All property shall be assessed at its true and full value in money. In determining the true and full value of real and personal property the assessor shall not adopt a lower or different standard of value because the same is to serve as a basis of taxation, nor shall he adopt as a criterion of value the price for which the property would sell at an auction or at a forced sale, or in the aggregate with all the property in the town or district; but he shall value each article or description of property by itself and at such a sum or price as he believes the same to be fairly worth in money.' SDC 57.0334. 'True and full value', as defined in SDC 57.0301, means '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.' The statute in other words provides for an assessment at the price that property would bring to its owner if it were offered for [77 S.D. 557] sale on an open market under conditions in which neither buyer nor seller could take advantage of the exigencies of the other. See Tidball v. Miller, 72 S.D. 243, 32 N.W.2d 683. The Constitution (Art. XI, Sec. 2) requires not only that 'taxes shall be uniform on all property of the same class', but that the 'valuation of property for taxation purposes shall never exceed the actual value thereof.'

Page 894

As we have stated there is no claim of discrimination in valuation between the hotel property and similar property in the same taxing district and that reduction was necessary to effect uniformity. However, if the hotel property was assessed in excess of its actual value, respondent taxpayer was entitled to a reduction notwithstanding there was no discrimination in valuation and assessment. In re Jepsen's Appeal, 76 S.D. 421, 80 N.W.2d 76 and cases cited.

An appeal to the circuit court from the action of the county board of equalization in refusing to reduce the assessed valuation of property is tried de novo and the circuit court does not merely have power to determine whether the action of the board of equalization was without jurisdiction or arbitrary, but to determine anew what is the actual value of the property and to reduce the assessment 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 620.

Appellants place much stress on the presumption that the assessor's valuation is correct. This is an application of the general rule that in the absence of proof to the contrary courts will presume that public officers have properly discharged the duties of their offices. Adamson v. Minnehaha County, 67 S.D. 423, 293 N.W. 542; State ex rel. Gosch v. Lemler, S.D., 84 N.W.2d 418. We have held that the presumption had no application where the assessing authorities made no investigation of their own, but accepted valuations made by professional appraisers. In re Jepsen's Appeal, supra. The presumption, however, like other presumptions does not take the place of evidence. It disappears when evidence is introduced from which facts may be found. [77 S.D. 558] Peters v. Lohr, 24 S.D. 605, 124 N.W. 853; McKiver v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co., 67 S.D. 613, 297 N.W. 445. The burden of proof in other words is on the complaining taxpayer to prove that an assessment is excessive. Appellants relying...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc., Nos. 11635
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • December 31, 1976
    ...Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Farmers Co-op. Co., 68 S.D. 338, 2 N.W.2d 665); Sheraton-Midcontinent Corp. v. County of Pennington, 1959, 77 S.D. 554, 95 N.W.2d 892 (value of building for taxation); Lampe Market Co. v. Alliance Ins. Co., 1946, 71 S.D. 120, 22 N.W.2d 427 (value of building in......
  • Heer v. State, Nos. 15791
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • November 23, 1988
    ...83 S.D. 584, 163 N.W.2d 344 (destruction of things attached to realty) ... Sheraton-Midcontinent Corp. v. County of Pennington, 1959, 77 S.D. 554, 95 N.W.2d 892 (value of building for taxation); Lampe Market Co. v. Alliance Ins. Co., 1946, 71 S.D. 120, 22 N.W.2d 427 (value of building in in......
  • Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Gillis, No. 10313
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • February 14, 1967
    ...neither buyer nor seller could take advantage of the exigencies of the other. Sheraton-Midcontinent Corporation v. County of Pennington, 77 S.D. 554, 95 N.W.2d 892. It is akin to eminent domain willing seller--willing buyer guide for which see City of Huron v. Jelgerhuis, 77 S.D. 600, 97 N.......
  • Thares v. BROWN COUNTY BD. OF EQUALIZATION, No. 21366.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • August 23, 2000
    ...authorities to fix an assessment within a specific formula." See Sheraton-Midcontinent 616 N.W.2d 393 Corp. v. County of Pennington, 77 S.D. 554, 95 N.W.2d 892, 896 [¶ 40.] It is a simple principle that when property is recently purchased through an arm's length transaction with no unique c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Shaffer v. Honeywell, Inc., Nos. 11635
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • December 31, 1976
    ...Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Farmers Co-op. Co., 68 S.D. 338, 2 N.W.2d 665); Sheraton-Midcontinent Corp. v. County of Pennington, 1959, 77 S.D. 554, 95 N.W.2d 892 (value of building for taxation); Lampe Market Co. v. Alliance Ins. Co., 1946, 71 S.D. 120, 22 N.W.2d 427 (value of building in......
  • Heer v. State, Nos. 15791
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • November 23, 1988
    ...83 S.D. 584, 163 N.W.2d 344 (destruction of things attached to realty) ... Sheraton-Midcontinent Corp. v. County of Pennington, 1959, 77 S.D. 554, 95 N.W.2d 892 (value of building for taxation); Lampe Market Co. v. Alliance Ins. Co., 1946, 71 S.D. 120, 22 N.W.2d 427 (value of building in in......
  • Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Gillis, No. 10313
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • February 14, 1967
    ...neither buyer nor seller could take advantage of the exigencies of the other. Sheraton-Midcontinent Corporation v. County of Pennington, 77 S.D. 554, 95 N.W.2d 892. It is akin to eminent domain willing seller--willing buyer guide for which see City of Huron v. Jelgerhuis, 77 S.D. 600, 97 N.......
  • Thares v. BROWN COUNTY BD. OF EQUALIZATION, No. 21366.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of South Dakota
    • August 23, 2000
    ...authorities to fix an assessment within a specific formula." See Sheraton-Midcontinent 616 N.W.2d 393 Corp. v. County of Pennington, 77 S.D. 554, 95 N.W.2d 892, 896 [¶ 40.] It is a simple principle that when property is recently purchased through an arm's length transaction with no unique c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT