225 N.C. App. 713
N.C. Ct. App.2013Background
- Parkdale appeals the Davidson County 2007 ad valorem valuations of its Lexington and Thomasville textile mills.
- Review Board reduced the valuations from the County’s figures to lower values, Parkdale claiming true values were far lower.
- This Court previously vacated the Commission’s decision for misapplication of burden-shifting and remanded for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- On remand, the Commission issued a Final Decision on Remand but did not conduct new hearings; it reiterated some findings and offered three rationales.
- This Court found the Commission’s remand decision still arbitrary and failed to show how the County carried its burden; it vacates and remands again for further fact-finding.
- The case remains unresolved pending whether the Commission can show true value using proper methodology or adopt Parkdale’s value as instructed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Commission properly apply burden-shifting on remand? | Parkdale shifted the burden by showing County’s valuation was arbitrary and above true value. | County bears burden to show valuation methods produce true value after burden shift. | No; the remand decision failed to show proper burden-shifting analysis. |
| Were the Commission’s new findings sufficient to show County met its burden? | Parkdale argues the County’s new findings are inadequate. | County asserts the new findings demonstrate why its valuation is proper. | No; the Final Decision on Remand does not adequately prove County’s valuation will produce true value. |
| Did the Commission rely properly on comparables, Carter’s appraisals, and Schedule of Values? | Reliance on dissimilar/appraisal methods and schedule values is flawed after burden shift. | County’s comparables and schedule values are adequate to support true-value finding. | No; these rationales do not satisfy the burden after it shifted to the County. |
| Should the Commission conduct additional hearings or adopt Parkdale’s value? | If burden cannot be met, adopt Parkdale’s lower value. | Commission should show its methods produce true value through evidence. | Remand for further fact-finding and analysis; potential adoption of Parkdale’s value if County cannot meet burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re AMP, 287 N.C. 562, 215 S.E.2d 761 (North Carolina Supreme Court, 1975) (presumption of correctness and burden shifting in ad valorem cases; substantial evidence standard)
- IBM Credit II, 201 N.C. App. 345, 689 S.E.2d 489 (North Carolina Court of Appeals, 2009) (burden-shifting framework for valuations; need for weight of evidence and method proven)
- In re S. Ry., 313 N.C. 177, 328 S.E.2d 235 (North Carolina Supreme Court, 1985) (true-value determination requires competent evidence of method and outcome)
- In re McElwee, 304 N.C. 68, 283 S.E.2d 115 (North Carolina Supreme Court, 1981) (whole-record approach to substantial evidence; cannot reweigh ballot by court)
- In re IBM Credit Corp., In re IBM Credit Corp., 731 S.E.2d 444 (North Carolina Court of Appeals, 2012) (remand with instructions to adopt taxpayer’s value when County fails to meet burden)