602 S.E.2d 47 | S.C. | 2004
Lead Opinion
Appellants/respondents the (Hoefers)
This is a companion case to our decision filed today in Brackenbrook North Charleston, LP v. County of Charleston, 360 S.C. 390, 602 S.E.2d 39, 2004 WL 1822866 (2004). For the reasons given in Brackenbrook, we hold that the Hoefers must pursue their refunds using the procedure found in S.C.Code Ann. § 12-60-2560 (2000).
The circuit court orders on appeal are reversed to the extent they decide any issue other than the lawfulness of Charleston County Ordinance 1163, and the matter remanded.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
. The appellants/respondents are five individuals, one marital trust, and a family limited partnership.
. Respondents/appellants are Charleston County and its treasurer, referred to collectively as "County.”
. According to the complaint, several of the Hoefers did not pay the taxes until after the suit was commenced.
. The parties confirmed at oral argument that the Hoefers had initiated a refund request under this statute that was being held in abeyance pending the decision in the suit.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. To the extent the trial court’s order is consistent with my dissent in the companion case of Brackenbrook North Charleston, LP v. County of Charleston, 360 S.C. 390, 602 S.E.2d 39, 2004 WL 1822866 (2004), I would affirm.