# Thares v. Brown County Board of Equalization

> South Dakota Supreme Court · August 23, 2000 · 616 N.W.2d 380

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9514726

## Case

- **Full name:** James L. THARES and Traci L. Thares, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BROWN COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Defendants and Appellees
- **Court:** South Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 23, 2000
- **Citations:** 616 N.W.2d 380; 2000 SD 114; 2000 S.D. LEXIS 121
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Amundson
- **Judges:** Gilbertson, Miller, Konenkamp, Sabers, Amundson
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9514726

## Opinion text

AMUNDSON, Justice
(concurring with the result of the dissent).
[¶ 38.] Under SDCL 10-6-33,
[a]ll property shall be assessed at its true and full value in money. The true and full value is the taxable value of such property upon which the levy shall be made and applied and the taxes computed. In determining the true and full value of property the director of equalization may not adopt a lower or different standard of value because it is to serve as a basis of taxation. The director may not adopt as a criterion of value the price for which the property would sell at a forced sale, or in the aggregate with all the property in the third class municipality or district. The director shall value each article or description by itself and at an amount or price as he believes the property to be fairly worth in money. The true and full value shall he determined by appropriate consideration of the cost approach, the market approach and the income approach to appraisal. The director of equalization shall consider and document all elements of such approaches that are applicable prior to a determination of true and full value. (Emphasis added.)
[¶ 39.] In determining the full and true value of property for assessment purposes, “it is the duty of the assessor to use all of those techniques and facts which accurately reflect ‘full and true’ value and to reject those which do not.’ ” See Yadco, Inc. v. Yankton County, 89 S.D. 651, 655 , 237 N.W.2d 665, 667 (1975) (quotations omitted). “Factors which ordinarily are to be considered include: ‘replacement cost less proper deductions ... income from the property,’ ‘evidence of actual sales of other lands,’ when such sales are made by willing buyers to willing sellers, and previous sales of the particular property in question.” See id. (quotations omitted). Should the actual price for which a property has sold for be considered as a factor in determining valuation? I submit it should. While we have previously held that “ ‘[a] single sale of property ... does not ordinarily determine true and full value of a property as there may be economic conditions of a temporary nature and other factors which prevent the same from being a true measure of value,’ ” we have never stated that the actual sale price should not be one of the factors considered in determining the ultimate valuation amount. See Richter Enterprises, Inc. v. Sully County, 1997 SD 61, ¶ 13 , 563 N.W.2d 841, 845 (quotations omitted). In fact, we have stated that the determination of true and full value “permits evidence of all relevant factors and does not authorize assessing authorities to fix an assessment within a specific formula.” See Sheraton-Midcon- *393 tinent Corp. v. County of Pennington, 77 S.D. 554 , 95 N.W.2d 892, 896 (S.D.1959).
[¶ 40.] It is a simple principle that when property is recently purchased through an arm’s length transaction with no unique circumstances or surrounding market conditions affecting the sale, the sale price should not be disregarded in considering what that property is worth. See, e.g., Willow, Inc. v. Yankton County, 89 S.D. 643, 648 , 237 N.W.2d 660, 663 (1975) (comparing the sale price and the “willing buyer-willing seller test” to determine the true and full value of the property). In view of the fact that a sale between a willing buyer and willing seller is and should be considered in the assessment process, there is no need to create a special classification, such as “nonagricultural acreage.” Therefore, I join in the result of the dissent of Justice Sabers.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9514726. Public record. Not legal advice.