954 N.W.2d 718
S.D.2021Background
- Roberts County Director of Equalization applied an across-the-board 10% increase to all non‑agricultural property values for the 2018 tax year; the County had not performed a systematic reappraisal since 1994–95.
- James Pirmantgen appealed 16 parcel assessments; initial OHE hearing recording was incomplete, so the matter was remanded and reheard.
- County Director testified she used a countywide market adjustment (10%) to move the median level of assessment toward the statutory 85% target and did not individually inspect or fully apply cost/market/income approaches to each of Pirmantgen’s parcels.
- Appraiser Tony Valnes provided market-based appraisals for six parcels, generally lower than the County’s post‑10% assessed values; the OHE modified four parcels but upheld most assessments.
- The circuit court set aside the 10% market adjustment, adopted Valnes’s values for several parcels, ordered ten parcels reverted to pre‑10% assessments, and directed refunds; the County appealed.
- The Supreme Court affirmed in part (adopting reductions for certain parcels and the legal ruling that the countywide 10% increase was improper without individual valuations), reversed in part (reinstating the County’s affirmed values for ten parcels), and held the circuit court lacked authority to order refunds; awarded Pirmantgen $3,000 in appellate attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of County’s across‑the‑board 10% increase without individual valuations | Director failed to value each parcel, did not inspect, so assessment lacked statutory/constitutional validity and lost presumption of correctness | Director relied on market analysis and cost program (Marshall & Swift) and SDCL 10‑3‑41 authorized adjustment to reach 85% median | Court: Director must determine true and full value of each property under SDCL 10‑6‑33 before any adjustment; countywide 10% increase without individual valuation was unlawful in this case; circuit court correctly set aside the adjustment as to relevant parcels |
| Treatment of parcels with Valnes market appraisals (#8426, #6346, #2202) | Valnes’s inspected comparables show these parcels are overassessed; OHE erred to reject | County relied on purchase prices and OHE’s conclusion that assessments were not unreasonable | Court: OHE clearly erred in rejecting Valnes’s market evidence; affirmed circuit court’s adoption of Valnes’s values for these parcels |
| Ten parcels with no taxpayer appraisal evidence | General contention that assessments exceed true and full value is sufficient given countywide improper adjustment | Plaintiff produced no parcel‑specific evidence; OHE properly found burden not met | Court: Circuit court erred to reverse OHE as to these ten parcels—taxpayer failed to meet prima facie burden to show excess valuation |
| Power to order refunds of taxes collected | Court may remedy inequity by ordering reimbursement tied to correcting assessments | Circuit court lacks authority on appeal from board to levy, collect, or refund taxes; taxpayer must pursue statutory refund/abatement or protest procedures | Court: Circuit court exceeded its statutory authority; ordering refunds was error (taxpayer must use statutory refund remedies) |
Key Cases Cited
- Clarkson and Co. v. Harding Cnty., 581 N.W.2d 499 (S.D. 1998) (standard for appellate review of agency findings)
- Butte County v. Vallery, 602 N.W.2d 284 (S.D. 1999) (give great weight to hearing examiner’s factual findings)
- Amert v. Lake County Bd. of Equalization, 580 N.W.2d 616 (S.D. 1998) (assessor must consider cost, market, and income approaches)
- Sabow v. Pennington County, 500 N.W.2d 257 (S.D. 1993) (statutory duty to appraise property annually)
- Smith v. Tripp County, 765 N.W.2d 242 (S.D. 2009) (taxpayer bears burden to show assessed valuation exceeds true and full value)
- Trask v. Meade County Comm’n, 943 N.W.2d 493 (S.D. 2020) (taxpayer’s burden to show excess valuation and remedies)
- Riverview Properties, Ltd. v. S.D. State Bd. of Equalization, 439 N.W.2d 820 (S.D. 1989) (circuit court’s powers on appeal are coextensive with the board’s; board lacks authority to refund taxes)
- Lick v. Dahl, 285 N.W.2d 594 (S.D. 1979) (exclusive statutory methods for recovery of alleged illegal taxes)
- Yadco, Inc. v. Yankton County, 237 N.W.2d 665 (S.D. 1976) (definition/understanding of fair market/true and full value)
- Crisman v. Determan Chiropractic, Inc., 687 N.W.2d 507 (S.D. 2004) (standards for awarding attorney fees on appeal)