In re the Appeal of the May Department Stores Co.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

In re the Appeal of the May Department Stores Co.

459 S.E.2d 274, 119 N.C. App. 596, 1995 N.C. App. LEXIS 531

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 18, 1995

DocketNo. 9410PTC58

StatusPublished

This text of 459 S.E.2d 274 (In re the Appeal of the May Department Stores Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Appeal of the May Department Stores Co., 459 S.E.2d 274, 119 N.C. App. 596, 1995 N.C. App. LEXIS 531 (N.C. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHNSON, Judge.

The Commission, in making findings of fact based on the evidence, concluded that the County’s appraisal of the subject property at a value of $8,497,800.00 did not exceed the true value in money of the subject property as of 1 January 1991. Taxpayer brings forward numerous assignments of error; however, this case turns on the question of whether the Commission’s use of the cost approach was unlawful because it does not approximate market value as required by North Carolina General Statutes § 105-283 (1992). In a similar case filed today, In re Appeal of Belk-Broome Co., No. 9310PTC1319 (N.C. App. July 18, 1995), we held that it was error for the Commission to exclusively use the cost approach in valuing the Belk property therein, and that the income approach should have been the primary method used to reach a value for the Belk property. However, we noted “that while the income approach is preferential a combination of approaches may be used because of the inherent weakness in each approach.” Belk, slip op. at 6. In Belk, we did not “foreclose using such a combination of approaches ... so long as the income approach [was] given greatest weight.” Id.

[598]*598Therefore, based on Belle, we reverse and remand this action for a new hearing so that the Commission can redetermine the value of the subject property with emphasis on the income approach to valuation. We note that in Belle, we commented that “[t]he cost approach is better suited for valuing specialty property or newly developed property[.]” Id. Given that the subject property in the instant case was newly developed property, we direct the Commission’s attention to the language cited above that “a combination of approaches may be used because of the inherent weakness in each approach . .. [as] long as the income approach is given greatest weight.”

Reversed and remanded.

Judges COZORT and GREENE concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JOHNSON, Judge.

The Commission, in making findings of fact based on the evidence, concluded that the County’s appraisal of the subject property at a value of $8,497,800.00 did not exceed the true value in money of the subject property as of 1 January 1991. Taxpayer brings forward numerous assignments of error; however, this case turns on the question of whether the Commission’s use of the cost approach was unlawful because it does not approximate market value as required by North Carolina General Statutes § 105-283 (1992). In a similar case filed today, In re Appeal of Belk-Broome Co., No. 9310PTC1319 (N.C. App. July 18, 1995), we held that it was error for the Commission to exclusively use the cost approach in valuing the Belk property therein, and that the income approach should have been the primary method used to reach a value for the Belk property. However, we noted “that while the income approach is preferential a combination of approaches may be used because of the inherent weakness in each approach.” Belk, slip op. at 6. In Belk, we did not “foreclose using such a combination of approaches ... so long as the income approach [was] given greatest weight.” Id.

[598]*598Therefore, based on Belle, we reverse and remand this action for a new hearing so that the Commission can redetermine the value of the subject property with emphasis on the income approach to valuation. We note that in Belle, we commented that “[t]he cost approach is better suited for valuing specialty property or newly developed property[.]” Id. Given that the subject property in the instant case was newly developed property, we direct the Commission’s attention to the language cited above that “a combination of approaches may be used because of the inherent weakness in each approach . .. [as] long as the income approach is given greatest weight.”

Reversed and remanded.

Judges COZORT and GREENE concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 S.E.2d 274, 119 N.C. App. 596, 1995 N.C. App. LEXIS 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-appeal-of-the-may-department-stores-co-ncctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack