Opinion ID: 901185
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Interpretation of the Hearing Examiner's Decision

Text: [¶ 6.] The source of this dispute lies primarily in the parties' different interpretations of the hearing examiner's decision. Neither party appealed the decision, thus making it final as to the issues it addressed. This Court has held, [I]f the prior final judgment or order has been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, it `is conclusive as to all rights, questions, or facts directly involved and actually, or by necessary implication, determined therein,' whether the court was correct at the time or not. Moe v. Moe, 496 N.W.2d 593, 595 (S.D.1993) (quoting Raschke v. DeGraff, 81 S.D. 291, 295-96, 134 N.W.2d 294, 297 (1965)). This Court has further held, [A]ny claim over which an administrative agency had jurisdiction that is raised and rejected by the agency, is subsequently barred from being retried on the merits in the courts under the doctrine of res judicata. McElhaney v. Anderson, 1999 SD 78, ¶ 13, 598 N.W.2d 203, 206. The parties had the right to appeal but did not do so. Thus, res judicata applies and the decision of the hearing examiner is final and binding. Only the meaning and enforcement of the decision are at issue here. [¶ 7.] Although the hearing examiner's decision is not the perfect example of clarity, we conclude that the decision affirmed the County's original valuation of Beals' property, and did not require revaluation. The stated issue in the decision was whether the subject property [was] assessed higher than actual market value or assessed higher than comparable property. Under South Dakota law at the time of the hearing, there was a presumption that the County's assessment was correct. [4] See Kocer v. Bon Homme County Com'rs, 1999 SD 155, ¶ 14, 604 N.W.2d 1, 4; Clarkson and Co. v. Harding County, 1998 SD 74, ¶ 6, 581 N.W.2d 499, 502; Richter Enter., Inc. v. Sully Cty., 1997 SD 61, ¶ 7, 563 N.W.2d 841, 843. [¶ 8.] The hearing examiner placed the burden of overcoming this presumption on the taxpayers, Beals, as required by our law at that time. Id. Based on the evidence presented, the hearing examiner concluded Beals had not met the burden of overcoming the presumption in favor of the County's assessment; consequently, the County's valuation was not overturned. However, the hearing examiner did find portions of the property were improperly classified as non-agricultural and ordered those portions to be reclassified as agricultural. The order stated: It is the order of the Hearing Examiner that the following shall be reclassified as agricultural property, if not already, and value as such. The phrase value as such as used in this order, gives rise to the dispute in this case. [¶ 9.] Beals contend this phrase meant the County's original assessment was incorrect, and that a new valuation was required. Standing alone, this language could reasonably be interpreted to require revaluation. However, when the decision is read as a whole, it is clear that revaluation was not required because the hearing examiner had found that Beals failed to meet their burden of proving the original assessment was incorrect. [¶ 10.] The relevant statement in the decision is contained in the conclusions of law. It reads: Petitioners bear the burden of producing sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the assessed valuation of their property was in excess of its full and true value. Petitioners did not meet that burden. (emphasis added). The meaning and intent of the conclusion is clear and unambiguous: the petitioners did not meet their burden of proving the County's assessed value was wrong. To interpret the language of the ordervalue as suchas requiring a new assessment would be in direct conflict with the decision's unambiguous conclusion of law. Beals' proposed interpretation of the decision would mean the hearing examiner concluded the original valuation was not excessive or erroneous but then ordered a revaluation anyway. The hearing examiner could not have intended such an inconsistent ruling. The hearing examiner's order did not require the County to revalue the property. Any other interpretation of the decision would create an inconsistency between its provisions.