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Unpublished Opinion No. 2009-UP-587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).