The Supreme Court of South Carolina - SC Judicial Department

More documents

Recommendations

Info

project. The ALC upheld this decision. Appellants contend the ALC erred in relying on the Beaver appraisal. We vacate this finding and place the property valuation issue before the ALC for a de novo determination. At the contested case hearing, Appellants presented evidence that Beaver was disciplined by the Colorado Board of Real Estate Appraisers for failure to properly understand and employ recognized appraisal methods, and his license in Colorado was eventually revoked. More importantly for our purposes on appeal, Appellants presented evidence that several assumptions underlying the $500,000 appraisal in this case were inaccurate. For example, Appellants presented evidence—and the ALC found—that the building measured 5,083 square feet. Beaver's appraisal, however, stated the building was 5,016 square feet. As another example, Beaver made deductions from the appraised value of the building to account for the cost of mold remediation estimated at $30,000, but Appellants presented evidence that the actual cost of mold remediation was only $1,200. Appellants offered an alternative value for the property of $775,000, based on their expert's appraisal. Southern MRI also offered an alternative value through Thomas Pietras, a certified public accountant and GAAP expert. Pietras valued the property at $634,500. The ALC found Appellants "did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was contrary to the applicable regulations to rely on Beaver's appraisal." However, the ALC acknowledged the Beaver appraisal was questionable, stating: Applying GAAP to Beaver's appraisal may bring into question its reliability. In that event, the court is persuaded by Pietras's land valuation, which he determined by capitalizing the purchase option contained in the lease executed between Southern MRI and its landlord. The market value of the land and building would then be $634,500. As discussed above, the total project cost must be a reasonable estimate of the true capital cost of the project at issue. Accordingly, to show that 24
using Beaver's appraisal was "contrary to the applicable regulations," Appellants needed only show that Beaver's appraisal was unreasonable. To the extent the ALC's decision implies Appellants needed to make some additional showing, the decision was affected by an error of law. It appears to us that the ALC felt constrained to follow DHEC's acceptance of the Beaver appraisal; as the fact-finder, the ALC was free to make factual findings based on its view of the credibility and weight of the evidence. The reasonableness of an appraisal is clearly an issue of fact, subject to the substantial evidence standard of review. Here, the ALC did not make a finding that Beaver's appraisal was reasonable and expressly found a higher value for the property "persuasive." We vacate and remand for a de novo determination of the value of the property. IV. The express purposes of the CON Act, which include preventing unnecessarily duplicative facilities and services and containing costs, require DHEC to calculate total project cost in a manner that reflects the true cost of the project at issue. DHEC's method of allocating shared costs in this case— which was accepted by the ALC—permitted Southern MRI to reduce its total project cost based on a factor unrelated to the realities of its proposed imaging center. This was an error of law, and we reverse the portion of the ALC's order that relied on an equal division of shared costs. Moreover, the ALC failed to recognize that it would be contrary to the CON Act and its applicable regulations to rely on an appraisal that was not a reasonable estimate of the value of the property leased by Southern MRI. Thus, if the Beaver appraisal was unreasonable, it was error to rely on it. For this reason, we vacate the portion of the ALC's order that relied on the Beaver appraisal. We remand for further proceedings. REVERSED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED. TOAL, C.J., PLEICONES, BEATTY and HEARN, JJ., concur. 25
Page 1 and 2: The Supreme Court of South Carolina
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH
Page 5 and 6: The South Carolina Court of Appeals
Page 7 and 8: PETITIONS FOR REHEARING 4705-Hudson
Page 9 and 10: PETITIONS-SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME CO
Page 11 and 12: 4711-Jennings v. Jennings Pending 4
Page 13 and 14: 2010-UP-303-State v. N. Patrick 201
Page 15 and 16: THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The
Page 17 and 18: determination by the Department as
Page 19 and 20: 24A S.C. Code Ann. Regs. 61-15 § 1
Page 21 and 22: space to physician's practices and
Page 23: In sum, DHEC's policy shift concern
Page 27 and 28: suspension. 1 We accept the agreeme
Page 31 and 32: educated and financially successful
Page 33 and 34: civility, not only in court, but al
Page 35 and 36: he runs afoul of the penalties of l
Page 39 and 40: (B) shall execute and file with the
Page 45 and 46: Columbia, South Carolina April 21,
Page 47 and 48: E. Ros Huff, Jr., of Irmo, for Appe
Page 49 and 50: aised the issue on behalf of Matthe
Page 51 and 52: II. Beneficiaries/Next of Kin Depen
Page 53 and 54: insolvent insurer and (a) the claim
Page 55 and 56: Judge Goode found, the imposition o
Page 57 and 58: John T. Crawford, Jr., and Keven Ke
Page 59 and 60: STANDARD OF REVIEW In an action at
Page 61 and 62: any other person having a current o
Page 63 and 64: Accordingly, Appellants maintain th
Page 65 and 66: Specifically, Appellants argue the
Page 67 and 68: only be granted when absolutely nec
Page 69 and 70: abandoned issue when he failed to p
Page 71 and 72: the jury. Furthermore, the amount a
Page 75 and 76:
Poovey approached the scene, he obs
Page 77 and 78:
easonable suspicion to stop Frazier
Page 79 and 80:
urglary and the show-up, Sanders's
Page 81 and 82:
where an incident is so grievous th
Page 83 and 84:
Andrew F. Lindemann and J. Edward B
Page 85 and 86:
In any action . . . to recover dama
Page 87 and 88:
epose because the basis for a contr
Page 89 and 90:
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The
Page 91 and 92:
force trauma to the chest in connec
Page 93 and 94:
ISSUES ON APPEAL (1) Did the circu
Page 95 and 96:
to be a narcotic drug, one case fro
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Medicaid Services. 3 The South Caro
Page 101 and 102:
Peter appealed to the ALC. The ALC
Page 103 and 104:
necessitate a waiver-qualifying ind
Page 105 and 106:
of Columbia; Solicitor Edgar Lewis
Page 107 and 108:
transfer request." State v. Pittman
Page 109 and 110:
In this case, we find the family co
Page 111 and 112:
CONCLUSION We find the family court
Page 113 and 114:
FEW, C.J.: In Lawrence Burgess's ap
Page 115 and 116:
[T]he parties . . . consent and agr
Page 117 and 118:
municipality or a town from authori
Page 119 and 120:
court need not address remaining is
Page 121 and 122:
Burgess's counsel objected to the c
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
of 33%." Dr. Lehman also found Laws
Page 127 and 128:
the decision is affected by an erro
Page 129 and 130:
Reg. 67-707(C). known to the moving
show all

The Supreme Court of South Carolina - SC Judicial Department

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?