Lee Trace, LLC v. Berkeley County Council as Board of Review and Equalization, Berkeley County Council, and Larry Hess, as Assessor for Berkeley County, West Virginia

Summary

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the Berkeley County Circuit Court’s denial of Lee Trace, LLC’s challenge to the 2015 real property tax assessment for its apartment complex. The Court held that the assessor considered the applicable valuation approaches and depreciation factors and that Lee Trace failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the assessment was erroneous, unequal, or intentionally and systematically excessive. The Court also denied Lee Trace’s motion to supplement the appellate record with evidence not presented to the lower tribunal.

Holdings

1. Lee Trace failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the assessment was unequal, erroneous, or the product of intentional and systematic overvaluation; the circuit court did not err in affirming the Board's assessment.
2. An assessor need not perform an income-approach appraisal when the assessor lacks sufficient data to apply that method meaningfully, so long as the assessor considers the approach as required by the applicable state rule.
3. The circuit court properly applied the established presumption that an assessor's tax valuation is correct, subject to rebuttal by clear and convincing evidence.
4. The cost approach requires the assessor to consider physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and economic obsolescence, but does not require an adjustment for each factor; the record supported the finding that the assessor considered all three.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the assessor and Board properly equalized Lee Trace's property with comparable properties under Article X, section 9 of the West Virginia Constitution.
2. Whether the circuit court made clearly erroneous factual findings concerning the evidence of unequal or intentionally and systematically excessive valuation.
3. Whether the assessor was required to perform an income-approach analysis despite lacking sufficient data to develop a capitalization rate.
4. Whether the circuit court improperly applied a presumption of correctness to the assessor's valuation and thereby denied Lee Trace due process.
5. Whether the assessor considered the physical deterioration, functional obsolescence, and economic obsolescence factors required when applying the cost approach.

Disposition

affirmed