Title: Shahin v. City of Dover, Board of Assessment
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 111, 2011
State: Delaware
Issuer: Delaware Supreme Court
Date: September 12, 2011

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 
 
NINA SHAHIN,  
 
Petitioner/Appellant  Below- 
Appellant, 
 
v. 
 
CITY OF DOVER, BOARD OF 
ASSESSMENT,  
 
          Respondent/Appellee Below- 
          Appellee. 
§ 
§  No. 111, 2011 
§ 
§ 
§  Court Below─Superior Court 
§  of the State of Delaware 
§  in and for Kent County 
§  C.A. No. K10A-06-002 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
 
Submitted: August 12, 2011 
Decided: September 12, 2011 
 
Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices 
 
 
 
 
 
 
O R D E R  
 
 
This 12th day of September 2011, upon consideration of the briefs of 
the parties and the record below, it appears to the Court that: 
 
(1) 
The petitioner-appellant, Nina Shahin, filed an appeal from the 
Superior Court’s February 28, 2011 order affirming the May 3, 2010 
decision of the respondent-appellee, the City of Dover Board of Assessment.  
We find no merit to the appeal.  Accordingly, we affirm. 
 
(2) 
The record reflects that, in April 2010, Nina Shahin filed an 
appeal to the Board of Assessment from the City of Dover’s assessment of 
the value of her residential property located at 103 Shinnecock Road, Fox 
 
2
Hall West, Dover, Delaware (the “Property”).  The Property was purchased 
by Shahin and her husband in 2002 for $223,000.  In 2010, the City 
increased the assessed value of the Property to a total of $286,700---$90,600 
for the land and $198,100 for the improvements.  As a result, the property 
tax on the Property increased from $839.85 in 2009 to $968.47 in 2010.  In 
her appeal to the Board, Shahin asked that the Property be assessed at 
$150,000 based on “for sale” listings in the Fox Hall West subdivision.  The 
Board denied Shahin’s appeal.  Thereafter, she appealed to the Superior 
Court, which affirmed the Board’s decision. 
 
(3) 
Under Delaware law, a property owner seeking a reduction in a 
property assessment has a substantial evidentiary burden at both the 
administrative and appellate levels.1  Before the Board of Assessment, the 
property owner faces a presumption of accuracy in favor of the existing 
assessment, a presumption that may be rebutted only by evidence of 
“substantial overvaluation.”2  On appeal to the Superior Court, and on 
further appeal to this Court, the decision of the Board of Assessment is 
deemed to be “prima facie correct” and will be disturbed only if the 
                                                 
1 Seaford Associates, L.P. v. Board of Assessment Review, 539 A.2d 1045, 1047-48 (Del. 
1988). 
2 Id. (citing Fitzsimmons v. McCorkle, 214 A.2d 334, 337 (Del. 1965)). 
 
3
appellant can demonstrate that the Board of Assessment “acted contrary to 
law, fraudulently, arbitrarily or capriciously.”3   
 
(4) 
Delaware law further provides that real estate tax assessments 
must be based on the property’s fair market value.4  The definition of fair 
market value is “the price which would be agreed upon by a willing seller 
and a willing buyer, under ordinary circumstances, neither party being under 
any compulsion to buy or sell.”5  One of the three principal methods of 
determining fair market value is comparable sales.6  The Board is presumed 
to have the necessary expertise to evaluate competing methods of property 
valuation and make an informed judgment as to which method is more 
persuasive.7   
 
(5) 
In this appeal from the Superior Court’s affirmance of the 
Board’s decision, Shahin claims that the Board of Assessment should have 
accepted her method of valuation of the Property.  She contends that the 
Board acted contrary to law, fraudulently, arbitrarily and capriciously 
                                                 
3 Board of Assessment Review v. Stewart, 378 A.2d 113, 116 (Del. 1977); Del. Code Ann. 
tit. 9, § 8312(c). 
4 New Castle County Dep’t. of Fin. v. Teachers Insur. and Annuity Assoc., 669 A.2d 100, 
102 (Del. 1995). 
5 Id. (citing Seaford Assoc. v. Board of Assessment Review, 539 A.2d 1045, 1048 (Del. 
1988)). 
6 Id.  The other two methods are income capitalization and reproduction cost.  The first is 
best-suited for valuations of income-producing properties and the second can be 
unreliable and, therefore, is best used for establishing a ceiling on value.  Seaford Assoc. 
v. Board of Assessment Review, 539 A.2d at 1048-49. 
7 Id. at 102-03. 
 
4
because its assessments reflect a pattern of discrimination based on national 
origin.   
 
(6) 
The transcript of the Board of Assessment hearing reflects the 
following.  The City submitted an information packet, which included a 
discussion of the square footage of the Property and the property used by the 
Assessor as a market comparable.  Shahin presented the Board with copies 
of property information sheets used by homeowners in the Fox Hall West 
subdivision to sell their homes.  She argued that a reduction in her 
assessment was justified based upon the information sheets and the fact that 
most of the homes listed for sale did not actually sell.  She also argued that 
the Property was comparable to a neighbor’s property, which had been 
assessed for $35,200 less than hers.          
 
(7) 
In its deliberations, the Board discussed the evidence presented 
by Shahin, the general features of the current real estate market and the 
unique history of the Fox Hall West subdivision.  The Board noted that the 
property used by the City as a market comparable---a house that had sold for 
$375,000 in 2007---represented the most recent sale in the subdivision.  On 
the other hand, the property cited by Shahin as comparable to hers was 
actually 250 square feet smaller than hers.  Following the above discussion, 
 
5
the Board determined that Shahin had failed to rebut the presumption that 
the City’s assessment of the Property was correct. 
 
(8) 
We have carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ 
submissions in this case.  The record reflects that the Board properly 
considered the evidence before it, determined within its discretion that the 
City of Dover’s method of valuation was more persuasive than Shahin’s and, 
applying the correct legal standards, properly denied Shahin’s appeal.  In the 
absence of any evidence that the Board acted “contrary to law, fraudulently, 
arbitrarily or capriciously,” we will affirm the Board’s decision.  Because 
Shahin’s claim of discrimination on the basis of national origin was not 
presented to the Board in the first instance, we decline to address it for the 
first time in this appeal.8 
 
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the 
Superior Court is AFFIRMED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY THE COURT: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Myron T. Steele 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
                                                 
8 Supr. Ct. R. 8.