Burdess v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Equal.
298 Neb. 166
| Neb. | 2017Background
- William Burdess owned two agricultural parcels in Washington County containing homesites, secondary buildings, and stipulated wasteland (25.56 acres of 80; 29.12 acres of 60).
- Burdess elected special valuation for agricultural land; county assessed wasteland at $290/acre (2013), $335/acre (2014), and $450/acre (2015–2016); homesite acres assessed at $41,000 each year.
- Burdess protested to the Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) for tax years 2013–2016, arguing (1) wasteland special value must be $0/acre because it is unsuitable for agriculture, and (2) homesite acres should be equalized to a nearby Sully property assessed at $27,000.
- Assessor explained special valuation methodology: use arm’s-length sales of agricultural land (including wasteland) from less development-influenced areas (e.g., Burt County) and apply county market-area adjustments; homesite difference explained by different market areas and physical characteristics (bluff vs. river bottom).
- TERC affirmed the county board’s valuations, finding Burdess failed to present clear and convincing evidence to set wasteland value to $0 or to equalize the homesite to the Sully property.
- Burdess appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which reviews TERC decisions for errors appearing on the record (legal questions de novo).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper valuation of wasteland under special valuation | Wasteland unsuitable for agricultural use must have special value $0/acre under constitutional/statutory definitions | Special value is determined by statutory/regulatory methodology using market analysis of arm’s-length agricultural sales; wasteland can have nonzero special value | Court affirmed: assessor followed 350 Neb. Admin. Code ch.11 §005 methodology; competent evidence supports nonzero special valuation |
| Equalization/value of homesite acres | Homesite should be valued like Sully property (half-mile away) because both are agricultural and proximate | Properties are in different market areas with materially different physical characteristics justifying different values | Court affirmed: competent evidence (market-area distinctions and comparable sales) supports Board's higher valuation |
Key Cases Cited
- Lozier Corp. v. Douglas Cty. Bd. of Equal., 285 Neb. 705 (standard of review for TERC decisions) (reviews for errors appearing on the record; legal questions de novo)