Peter Oliver v. Lexington County Assessor

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR. THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals Peter G. Oliver, Appellant, v. Lexington County Assessor, Respondent. Administrative Law Court Marvin F. Kittrell, Administrative Law Court Judge Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-587 Heard November 18, 2009 – Filed December 14, 2009 AFFIRMED Peter G. Oliver, pro se, of Lexington, for Appellant. Jeffrey M. Anderson, of Lexington, for Respondent. PER CURIAM: Peter Oliver, pro se, appeals from the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) order affirming the Lexington County Assessor's (the Assessor's) valuation of his property located in Lexington, South Carolina (the Property). On appeal Oliver asserts the ALC erred in concluding the fair market value of the Property was $365,220 and that the Assessor's valuation of the Property prevented an equal and uniform assessment.[1] We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: 1. As to whether the ALC erred in determining the value of the Property for taxation purposes: S.C. Code Ann. § 12-37-930 (Supp. 2008) (stating fair market value is the measure for taxation purposes); Smith v. Newberry County Assessor, 350 S.C. 572, 577-78, 567 S.E.2d 501, 504 (Ct. App. 2002) (explaining this court must affirm an administrative agency's decision if the decision is supported by substantial evidence); Cloyd v. Mabry, 295 S.C. 86, 88, 367 S.E.2d 171, 173 (Ct. App. 1988) (explaining a taxpayer contesting an assessment has the burden of showing that the valuation of the taxing authority is incorrect). 2. As to whether the ALC erred in concluding the Assessor's reassessment was equal and uniform: S.C. Constitution, art. X, Sec. 1 (requiring that the "assessment of all property [] be equal and uniform in . . . certain . . . classifications."); Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Wakefield Twp., 247 U.S. 350, 353 (1918) (explaining the complaining party has the burden of proving an intentional and systematic undervaluation); Reliance Ins. Co. v. Smith, 327 S.C. 528, 537, 489 S.E.2d 674, 679 (Ct. App. 1997) (stating absolute accuracy with respect to valuation and complete equality and uniformity are not practically attainable); Id. at 537-38, 489 S.E.2d at 679 (finding one property's undervaluation does not render the accurate valuation of another property constitutionally defective where that property was assessed at its actual value). AFFIRMED. SHORT, THOMAS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur. [1] This court need not address Appellant's remaining arguments, as they are manifestly without merit. See Rule 220(b)(2), SCACR (stating that a point that is manifestly without merit need not be addressed).