Court Opinion

ID: 9515189
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:54:27.990135+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:26.040145
License: Public Domain

*420SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 17.] The hearing examiner’s determination that the Beals had the burden of proving that the assessed value of the subject property in 1999 was in excess of its full and true value, and failed to meet that burden, was largely based on our holdings in both Lincoln Township and Richter Enterprises Inc. See Lincoln Township v. South Dakota Board of Equalization, 1996 SD 13, ¶ 5, 543 N.W.2d 256, 257 (“Without an appraisal showing [Director’s] assessment was erroneous, taxpayer [has] not overcome the presumption of correctness.”); Richter Enterprises Inc. v. Sully County, 1997 SD 61, ¶ 14, 563 N.W.2d 841, 845 . (“Simply asserting that the valuation was in excess of the true and full value does not make it so.... Taxpayer must demonstrate that the tax assessment was unjust and inequitable.”). However, both of these cases are readily distinguishable from this case.
[¶ 18.] In both Lincoln Township and Richter Enterprises Inc., the property owners were appealing the decisions of their respective county directors of equalization to revalue their property absent any changes in the classification or use of the subject properties. Here, the Beals’ platted property had been recently vacated, which necessitated the county to reclassify and revalue the property. Yet, they failed to do so. Under these circumstances, there should not be a “presumption of correctness” regarding a valuation. To require the Beals to incur the expense of an independent appraisal when the county had an obligation to properly revalue the property is “unjust and inequitable.”
[¶ 19.] Due to the ambiguity in the hearing examiner’s order, the Beals did not immediately appeal the hearing examiner’s decision.5 When the matter later came before the trial court the hearing examiner’s findings were affirmed based on the fact that the Beals did not appeal the' decision in a timely manner, and therefore were estopped from contesting the values.6 However, it was actually the county who lost the lawsuit because the property was to be “reclassified as agricultural land” and “value[d] as such.” The governmental entity, the county, is the only one who can revalue the property as of the day of the assessment. The Beals could not do that. So, the county was the party that should have appealed the hearing examiner’s decision if they felt it was in error.
[¶ 20.] It is obvious that the property should have been revalued in 1999 from *421the fact that it was reclassified in 1998 and eventually revalued in 2000 and 2001, resulting in lower taxes to the Beals.7
[¶ 21.] Based on the above, this case should be reversed and remanded.

. In addition to finding that the Beals did not meet their burden in demonstrating that the assessed value was incorrect, the hearing examiner also ordered that the property “shall be reclassified as agricultural property, if not already, and valuefd] as such.” (emphasis added). This inherent ambiguity led to competing interpretations by the parties. On cross examination, Melva Beals testified as follows:
Q: Did there — I reviewed the 1999 ruling, there is no conclusion by the Hearing Officer as to what the value was, would you agree?
A: It said that they were supposed to reclassify it as agricultural land and value it as such.
However, during Mr. Schlotte’s cross examination he testified as follows:
Q: Was there a specific directive to the-to you as the Director of Equalization to revalue the property that has been the subject of the appeal?
A: No. Actually, it’s basically stated as far as I was concerned, as far as the county was concerned, that they didn't bear the burden or they did bear the burden and they couldn’t prove that the value part was wrong. ■

. The Order provides: "[t]his is the final decision in this matter unless you appeal the decision directly to circuit court within 30 days after this Order has been served on you.”

. On cross examination Mr. Schlotte testified as to the revaluation in 2000 and 2001:
Q: Now after 1999 then did you change the way that you assessed the Beals’ property ... ?
A: Yes, we did.
Q: And what method did you then apply or how did you then determine the value of the property for 2000 and 2001?
A: For 2000 and 2001 what we on the county level did was we-that particular type of shore land with that steepness and that type of terrain is valued at Pickerel Lake at 280 a front foot. Due to the fact that the plat was vacated, what we did is we reduced that by 15 percent because we knew if they were gonna sell it into lots they’d have to re-plat. So we reduced it by 15 percent for the cost of replatting and, thus, assessed a frontage at 238 a front foot. And the ag land, the back portion that we actually say is ag land and the back lots that were vacated, by the way, we have no problem with them also as ag land at $180 an acre.