Court Opinion

ID: 9856259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:43:01.089109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:25.840867
License: Public Domain

Snead, C.J.,
dissenting.
The only issue in this case is whether the property was assessed at more than its fair market value. The record shows that the County assessed the property at $9,360. The record also shows that the petitioner’s evidence established a fair market value of at least $16,500. One can readily see that the assessed value of $9,360 is not more than the admitted fair market valu'e of $16,500. Yet, in effect, the majority has concluded that $9,3 60 is more than $ 16,500.
In arriving at their conclusion the majority relies upon Bank v. Amherst County, 204 Va. 584, 132 S.E.2d 721 (1963); Woman's Club v. City of Richmond, 199 Va. 734, 101 S.E.2d 571 (1958), and Washington County National Bank v. Washington County, 176 Va. 216, 10 S.E.2d 515 (1940). None of these cases, in my opinion, is controlling. In Bank, the assessed value of the property, unlike the assessed value of petitioner’s property, was proven to be more than its fair market value. The same situation existed in Woman's Club. The Washington County case involved a question of uniformity, which is not an issue here.
The majority opinion holds that there is a constitutional mandate that “assessments must be made in relation to the fair market value of the property.” I find no such mandate in the Constitution. Section 169 (now Article X, Section 2) in its pertinent part reads, “* * * all assessments of real estate * * * shall be at their fair market value * * *." This section requires that assessments be at fair market value, not that they be in relation to fair market value.
*152As the majority points out, this Court has permitted assessments at less than fair market value. But today, in a case where uniformity is not in issue, the Court holds that an assessment must be at less than fair market value. Since Í find nothing in the Constitution, the statutes or our previous decisions that warrants such a holding, I respectfully dissent.
Gordon and Cochran, JJ., join in this dissent.