Tadros v. Richland County Assessor

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Emad Tadros, M.D., Respondent,

v.

Richland County Assessor, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2018-000186

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Harold W. Funderburk, Jr., Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-252
Submitted June 1, 2020 – Filed August 26, 2020

REVERSED

Malane S. Pike, of White Rock, for Appellant.

Joshua Snow Kendrick, of Kendrick & Leonard, P.C., of
Greenville, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: The Richland County Assessor (Assessor) appeals the
Administrative Law Court's (ALC) decision that Emad Tadros's (Tadros) appeal of
property tax valuation was timely. We reverse.
FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Through a family trust, Tadros purchased two parcels of property in Richland
County in 2014 for $1.85M. The record reflects the Assessor mailed property tax
assessment notices for both properties to Tadros's last known address1 through a
third party company, which deposited the notices with the U. S. Postal Service
(USPS) on July 17, 2015. The Assessor then mailed tax bills (using the third party
company and deposited with USPS) for both properties to the same address on
October 28, 2015. The Assessor did not receive any returned mail involving
Tadros.

At the ALC hearing, Tadros testified "[n]ever mind that I had never been
connected with the county ever before, and I thought this whole thing was actually
impounded. . . . [W]ith the loan I requested that the taxes be paid by the tenant
automatically. So I never got it. It never crossed my mind that this would be a
problem." He further testified he received the tax bills in January or February of
2016. In his letters to the Assessor, Tadros stated he received the first tax bill in
February of 2016. The ALC found Tadros submitted a written appeal of the
property tax assessment notices to the Assessor on March 16, 2016.

The Richland County Board of Assessor Appeals found the appeal was not timely
and denied review of the valuation of the parcels. Upon review, the ALC reversed
and found the appeal was timely, and the Assessor's valuation of the two parcels
was incorrect. The ALC found the Assessor mailed two property tax assessment
notices to Tadros on July 17, 2015, and mailed two tax bills to Tadros on October
28, 2015. However, because no information showed final delivery to Tadros and
because of "Tadros's denial that he received the notice," the ALC found the
property tax assessment notices were not delivered to Tadros. The ALC found
Tadros's first actual notice of the assessment occurred "when he received the tax
bills in February 2016." In the order denying reconsideration, the ALC elaborated
and stated that South Carolina law does not contemplate the use of a third party
mailing service, and because the service was used, "the [A]ssessor has never
mailed the assessment notice." This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

1
Tadros does not dispute that the addresses on the notices and bills are his correct
mailing address.
The Administrative Procedures Act establishes the standard of review in appeals
from the ALC. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610(B) (Supp. 2019). The Act constrains
an appellate court from reweighing the evidence presented to the ALC, but the
appellate court may reverse or modify a decision if the ALC's findings or
conclusions are:

(a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;
(b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (c)
made upon unlawful procedure; (d) affected by other
error of law; (e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable,
probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record;
or (f) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of
discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Id. "The question of statutory interpretation is one of law for the court to decide.''
Alltel Commc'ns, Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 399 S.C. 313, 316, 731 S.E.2d 869,
870 (2012). "A reviewing court may reverse the decision of the ALC where it is in
violation of a statutory provision or it is affected by an error of law." Id.

LAW/ANALYSIS

The Assessor argues the ALC erred in finding Tadros's appeal was timely. We
agree.

A property tax assessment notice "must be served upon the taxpayer personally or
by mailing it to the taxpayer at his last known place of residence." S.C. Code Ann.
§ 12-60-2510(A)(2) (Supp. 2019). "Where service by mail is permitted, it is
complete when the document is deposited with the United States Postal Service,
properly addressed with sufficient postage." Southbridge Props., Inc. v. Jones, 292
S.C. 198, 199, 355 S.E.2d 535, 536 (1987).

Citing Southbridge, the ALC found "South Carolina law does not contemplate the
use of a third party to mail documents." However, the Southbridge court did not
preclude the use of a third party mailing service where, as here, the mail is properly
deposited with the USPS. The Southbridge court stated "merely giving the [notice]
to a third party for mailing does not amount to service on the addressee."
Southbridge, 292 S.C. at 199, 355 S.E.2d at 536. The Southbridge court found the
appeal notice was not timely because it was not deposited with the USPS in proper
time. Here, the record reflects the property tax assessment notices were properly
addressed with sufficient postage and deposited with the USPS.
We find the Assessor complied with §12-60-2510(A)(2) when the property tax
assessment notices were mailed to Tadros's correct address. See Lindsey v. S.C.
Tax Comm'n, 323 S.C. 57, 60, 448 S.E.2d 577, 578 (Ct. App. 1994) (finding notice
timely where uncontroverted evidence showed notice was deposited in the mail
with correct address and proper postage). A public official's quasi-judicial duty
"requires the exercise of reason in the adaptation of means to an end, and discretion
in determining how or whether the act shall be done or the course pursued."
Wilson v. Preston, 378 S.C. 348, 354, 662 S.E.2d 580, 583 (2008). The Assessor
was within its discretion to use a third party mailing service to deposit the notices
with the USPS. Further, we note there is no additional statutory requirement that
the Assessor must show when the notice arrived at the destination or that the notice
was received.

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 12-60-2510(A)(3) (Supp. 2019), "the property
taxpayer, within ninety days after the assessor mails the property tax assessment
notice, must give the assessor written notice of objection." Here, Tadros had until
October 16, 2015, to give the written notice of objection. Because Tadros did not
give a timely written notice of objection, the Assessor was within its statutory
authority to deny the appeal. Accordingly, the order of the ALC is

REVERSED.2

HUFF, THOMAS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.