In re Tillman

653 S.E.2d 911, 187 N.C. App. 739, 2007 N.C. App. LEXIS 2563
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedDecember 18, 2007
DocketNo. COA07-555.
StatusPublished

This text of 653 S.E.2d 911 (In re Tillman) 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 Tillman, 653 S.E.2d 911, 187 N.C. App. 739, 2007 N.C. App. LEXIS 2563 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

TYSON, Judge.

Rollie and Mary Tillman ("the Tillmans") appeal from a final decision of the North Carolina Property Tax Commission ("Commission"), which affirmed Durham County's *912assessed value of their residence for ad valorem taxes for the 2005 tax year. We affirm.

I. Background

The Tillmans' residence is located at 421 Cedar Berry Lane in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The subject property is a condominium unit located in The Cedars of Chapel Hill ("the Cedars"), an adult residential continuing care retirement community. Residents of the Cedars are afforded a wide range of amenities such as "a full-service clubhouse and [an] on-site Health Care Center offering skilled nursing care and assisted living." The Tillmans chose to reside in this community because the Cedars is a licensed health facility and because of the availability of a membership in The Cedars of Chapel Hill Club, Inc. ("the Cedars Club"). The Cedars Club provides residents with a full complement of services including dining, recreation, laundry, housekeeping, security, and transportation.

On 11 October 2002, the Tillmans signed the Reservation Agreement to purchase the subject property for a total purchase price of $456,000.00. The purchase price included a non-refundable membership fee of $45,600.00, an amount equal to ten percent of the purchase price. The Reservation Agreement stated, "[m]embership in the [Cedars] Club [is an] integral part of purchase." The Reservation Agreement further stated, "[e]ach such Owner or the approved designee must acquire Membership simultaneously with the purchase of a Unit and each Member shall execute the Cedars Membership Agreement." (Emphasis supplied). Both the Reservation Agreement and the Membership Agreement were signed by the Tillmans and contained provisions clearly stating that membership in the Cedars Club is a requirement of ownership and residency in the Cedars retirement community. Additionally, the deed sets forth a provision requiring the Tillmans "to collect upon resale of the said Unit a membership fee payable to said Club in the amount of [] ten percent (10%) of the gross sales price."

The Durham County Tax Assessor assessed the Tillmans' residence at a total value of $447,994.00 for the 2005 tax year, approximately $8,000.00 less than the contract purchase price. The Tillmans challenged Durham County's assessment by filing an appeal with the Durham County Board of Equalization and Review ("the County Board"). On 16 June 2005, the County Board issued its decision and affirmed the $447,994.00 assessment of the Tillmans' residence.

The Tillmans appealed the Board's decision to the Commission and argued "the County Board employed an arbitrary and illegal method of appraisal in reaching the assessed value assigned to the subject property" and "the inclusion of the value of the [m]embership fee resulted in assignment of a value to the subject property which substantially exceeded its true value."

On 26 January 2007, following a two day hearing, the Commission entered its final decision and affirmed the decision of the County Board. The Commission made the following findings of fact, inter alia:

8. [T]hat the purchase of the subject residence requires that it be coupled with the rights, privileges and responsibilities of membership in the Cedars Club . . . and that by accepting the deed to the property, the [Tillmans] [] agree to comply with the bylaws of The Cedars Club and pay assessments that include a membership fee in the amount of ten percent (10%) of the purchase price.

9. The membership fee is calculated on the sale price or market value (as determined by an appraisal) and the "Required Membership" as designated in the Membership Agreement [] is a benefit and right of ownership of the property that the [Tillmans] acquired when they purchased the subject property. . . .

The Commission concluded that the Tillmans had failed to show by competent, material, and substantial evidence that: (1) the subject property was not properly appraised; (2) Durham County employed an arbitrary or illegal method of appraisal; or (3) the County Board assigned a value that substantially exceeded the true value in money of the subject property. The Tillmans appeal.

*913II. Issues

The Tillmans argue the Commission erred by concluding the cost of a membership in a continuing care retirement community may be included in the assessed value of real property and is subject to ad valorem taxation.

III. Standard of Review

This Court reviews the Commission's decision under the whole record test. The whole record test is not a tool of judicial intrusion and this Court only considers whether the Commission's decision has a rational basis in the evidence. We may not substitute our judgment for that of the Commission even when reasonably conflicting views of the evidence exist.

In re Appeal of Weaver Inv. Co., 165 N.C.App. 198, 201, 598 S.E.2d 591, 593 (internal citations and quotations omitted), disc. rev. denied, 359 N.C. 188, 606 S.E.2d 695 (2004).

"[A]d valorem tax assessments are presumed to be correct. . . . As a result of this presumption, when such assessments are attacked or challenged, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to show that the assessment was erroneous." In re Appeal of AMP, Inc., 287 N.C. 547, 562, 215 S.E.2d 752, 761-62 (1975) (internal citations and quotations omitted). To overcome this presumption, the taxpayer must "produce competent, material and substantial evidence that tends to show that: (1)[e]ither the county tax supervisor used an arbitrary method of valuation; or (2) the county tax supervisor used an illegal method of valuation; and (3) the assessment substantially exceeded the true value in money of the property." Id. at 563, 215 S.E.2d at 762 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). "If a taxpayer fails to present evidence sufficient to meet its burden as to either prong, the appeal fails." In re Appeal of The Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. Part., 356 N.C. 642, 647,

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

Related

In Re Appeal of the Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. Partnership
576 S.E.2d 316 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2003)
Albemarle Electric Membership Corp. v. Alexander
192 S.E.2d 811 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
In Re Appeal of Weaver Investment Co.
598 S.E.2d 591 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2004)
In Re the Appeal of AMP Inc.
215 S.E.2d 752 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1975)
IN THE MATTER OF DILLAHUNT
606 S.E.2d 694 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
653 S.E.2d 911, 187 N.C. App. 739, 2007 N.C. App. LEXIS 2563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-tillman-ncctapp-2007.