CopyCited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 28, 2004 | 278 Ga. 144, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 2126
...Supreme Court of Georgia. June 28, 2004. *496 Lowther & Walmsley, Timothy R. Walmsley, Savannah, for appellants. Hunter, Maclean, Exley & Dunn, Harold B. Yellin, Adam G. Kirk, Savannah, for appellee. HUNSTEIN, Justice. This appeal involves the interpretation of OCGA §
48-5-7.2, which provides for the certification of property as rehabilitated historic property for purposes of preferential assessment under OCGA §
48-5-7(c) and the "freezing" of this assessed value for ad valorem taxation during the rehabilitation period and thereafter for up to ten years. Anna K. Emmoth sought to utilize the provisions of OCGA §
48-5-7.2 to qualify for the preferential assessment after she decided to improve her property in Savannah....
...in appraised and assessed property values). Emmoth petitioned the Superior Court of Chatham County for mandamus relief, asserting that she was entitled as a matter of law to approval of her application for preferential assessment because under OCGA §
48-5-7.2 she needed only to complete the rehabilitation of the property within 24 months and that there was no statutory basis *497 for the Board's requirement that she obtain the DNR's final certification within that time frame....
...The superior court found the Board's other issues raised in its motion to dismiss were not ripe for disposition and denied the motion. The Board appeals the trial court's ruling. [3] Because the trial court properly interpreted the plain and unambiguous language of OCGA §
48-5-7.2 and provided Emmoth with the appropriate remedy, we affirm. 1. The Board argues that Emmoth's claim should have been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies available to her in an appeal to the Board of Equalization pursuant to OCGA §
48-5-311. OCGA §
48-5-7.2(e) expressly required the Board, upon denying Emmoth's application for preferential assessment, to notify the applicant in the same manner that notices of assessment are given pursuant to Code Section
48-5-306....
...We reject the Board's argument that mandamus was not appropriate. OCGA §
48-5-380 does not provide a legally adequate remedy to a taxpayer who has been denied the long-term preferential assessment that may be accorded rehabilitated historic property under OCGA §
48-5-7.2. 2. The Board contends that the trial court's interpretation of OCGA §
48-5-7.2 is contrary to the language and intent of the statute and argues that the proper interpretation is the one applied by the Board, namely, that OCGA §
48-5-7.2 requires a taxpayer both to complete the rehabilitation of the historic property and to obtain final certification from DNR within the two-year period in subsection (c). We disagree. OCGA §
48-5-7.2(c) gives a property owner 24 months from the date the county board of tax assessors receives the submitted preliminary certification "in which to complete the rehabilitation of such property in conformity with the application approved" by the DNR....
...subsection (e) makes clear that it is only "[u]pon receipt of final certification from the [DNR]" that a property owner may make application to the county board of tax assessors for preferential assessment. The plain and unambiguous language of OCGA §
48-5-7.2 does not support the Board's claim that both the rehabilitation process and the DNR final certification process must be completed within the two-year period before the owner may apply and obtain preferential assessment *498 for the properly certified, rehabilitated historic property....
...Indeed, the Board's interpretation conflicts with subsection (c), in that by requiring the property owner to obtain DNR final certification within the two-year time frame the Board would lessen the 24 months the subsection expressly gives property owners in which to rehabilitate their property. Furthermore, OCGA §
48-5-7.2 places no time limitations on DNR in the processing of the owner's request for final certification and the statute contains no guidelines whereby an owner could calculate the time required to obtain that final certification....
...the statute. The trial court properly declined to apply to the statute a construction that is not only contrary to the plain statutory language but also leads to absurd and unreasonable results. The Board attempts to avoid the plain language of OCGA §
48-5-7.2 by arguing that its interpretation is "implicit" in the interplay between subsections (c) and (e), in that a contrary interpretation would result in the Board having no value upon which to base the preferential assessment whenever the own...
...bilitation period. This argument has no merit, however, because in order to determine that value the Board need only look to OCGA §
48-5-2(3)(C), which defines "fair market value" of property classified as rehabilitated historic property under OCGA §
48-5-7.2, and OCGA §
48-5-7.2(g)(3), which sets forth the same test to be used when the county tax receiver or tax commissioner enters the basis or value of a parcel of rehabilitated historic property....
...We find similarly meritless the Board's argument that the trial court's interpretation would allow any property owner who completed the rehabilitation within two years to postpone indefinitely the submission of the final certification to the Board. The provisions in OCGA §
48-5-7.2 eliminate any incentive for a property owner to delay submission of the final certification....
...fication. Contrary to the Board's assertion that the property owner can submit the final certification years after the rehabilitation period has expired and obtain at that later time the full benefit of the statute's ten-year assessment freeze, OCGA §
48-5-7.2(g)(1) clearly provides that the "first year of eligibility" for the preferential assessment is "the tax year following the year in which the preliminary certification was filed" and subsection (g)(3) provides that the rehabilitated histor...
...ion is received pursuant to subsection (b) of this Code section in which to complete the rehabilitation of such property in conformity with the application approved by the [DNR]." [2] The trial court recognized that the Board was entitled under OCGA §
48-5-7.2(c) to remove the preferential assessment status it had granted Emmoth upon the expiration of the 24-month period after the date she submitted the preliminary certification to it....
