Court Opinion

ID: 9675480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:55:20.667192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:34.889182
License: Public Domain

MORGAN, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
The majority opinion cites with approval the Iowa cases, Goodell v. City of Clinton, Iowa, 193 N.W.2d 91, and Brenton v. City of Des Moines, 219 Iowa 267, 257 N.W. 794, and then in a footnote adds that there is a statutory maximum limitation at 25% of actual value of the lot at the times of assessment. The assessment in the instant case would have been unlawful in Iowa.
The Michigan case of Clark v. City of Royal Oak, 325 Mich. 298, 38 N.W.2d 413, does not involve the initial special assessment but rather a supplemental assessment. The initial assessment was not questioned and is therefore deemed correct. Under Michigan statute the supplemental assessments to cover deficiencies in the funds to pay bonds were apportioned as in the first instance and on the same percentages.
The Hot Springs city council opted to apportion on a benefits accrued basis as *708they are permitted to do under SDCL 9-48-45. However, they then failed to follow through on that theory. Nowhere in the record was there shown any action of the governing body to investigate and determine the amount in which each lot would be benefited. The trial court found that the total assessment against the property of the respondent was substantially in excess of the benefits conferred. Rather than void the entire assessment the trial court voided only that portion relating to respondent’s property and ordered reassessment to a maximum of 20.27% of the value of the property. This 20.27% factor was derived from a comparison with another piece of motel property not in issue in this case.
It appears to me that the majority are not according the learned trial judge the deference due the one who hears the evidence firsthand.* There was considerable testimony taken at the hearing relating to values of property and the benefits, if any, conferred by virtue of the improvement.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 Nicolaus v. Dewing, 81 S.D. 626, 139 N.W.2d 875 (1966), and Cunningham v. Yankton Clinic, P.A., S.D., 262 N.W.2d 508 (1978).