IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
REN CENTRE L.L.C,
Appellaiit,
C.A. No. N15A-01-007 CEB
vl-
NEW CASTLE COUNTY OFFICE
OF FINANCE and NEW CASTLE
COUNTY BOARD OF
ASSESSMENT REVIEW,
\/&/\/\/L/\/L/§/§/\_/§/&/
Appellee.
Date Submitted: October 21 , 2015
Date Decided: January 29, 2016
Upon Consideration of
Appeal From the Decisz`on of the New Castle County
Boam' of Assessment Revz`ew.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ORDER
This is an appeal by Ren Centre L.L.C. from a decision of the NeW Castle
County Board of Assessment RevieW ("the Board") adjusting the assessed value of _
the Renaissance Centre office building located at 405 King Street in Wilrnington
("the Property"). Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs in this matter, it appears
that:
l. The Property was initially assessed at $15,497,200 ($12,262,900
building; $3,234,300 land).l Ren Centre appealed the tax assessment to the Board
in November 2013. In November 2014, the Board held a hearing and rejected the
original assessment as too high. The Board voted to adopt the "cost approach" to
determine the value of the Property and set the value of the Property at
$12,439,000 ($10,638,900 building; $l,7l0,l00 land).
2. Ren Centre has appealed the Board’s decision to this Court. Ren
Centre is asking the Court to further reduce the Property’s value assessment to
$9,700,000. Speciflcally, Ren Centre argues that the value that the Board assessed
on the building did not account for depreciation despite the Board’s belief that it
did. Additionally, Ren Centre contends that the Board failed to account for zoning,
size, and location in determining the value of the land. Appellee argues in
response that the Board properly determined the land value of the Property using
the cost approach to valuation and the resulting assessment figure should be
upheld. Altematively, the Board contends that the proper result is to remand the
matter rather than ask the Court to determine the appropriate value.
3. On appeal, the decision of the Board is considered to be "prima facie
correct and the burden of proof shall be on the appellant to show that such body
1 New Castle County assesses all real property in terms of its fair market value as of July l,
l983, the County’s "base year to satisfy the Delaware constitutional requirement of uniformity in
taxation. See Tatten Partners v. New Castle Cly. Ba'. of Assessment Revz`ew, 642 A.Zd 1251,
1256 (Del. Super. l993).
2
acted contrary to law, fraudulently, arbitrarily or capriciously."z A decision is
arbitrary and capricious if it is "willful and unreasonable and without consideration
or in disregard of the facts."3 In reviewing a Board decision, the Court "does not
weigh the evidence, dctcrminc questions of crcdibility, or make its own factual
findings."4 "The Court at its discretion may also remand the matter to the board to
clarify issues of fact or to make findings consistent with the Court’s decision."5
4. The parties agree that the Board intended to assess the building at a
value that accounted for depreciation. The transcript of the hearing suggests the
same. But the Court is not inclined to adjust the Board’s final assessment based on
inferences from the record, nor is the Court permitted to make its own factual
findings on appeal. Therefore, the Court finds that this matter must be remanded
to the Board for the purpose of correcting the error.
5. As to the land value, the Board found two of the comparable land
sales cited in Appellant’s appraisal probative in determining the proper assessment
value. "Comparables need not be identical, but only similar in nature."é The
5 9 Del. C. § 8312(¢).
3 Brandywine Innkeepers, L.L.C. v. Bd. of Assessment Review of New Castle Cty., 2005 WL
1952879, at *3 (Del. Super. June 3, 2005).
" 1¢1.
5 9 Del. C. § 8312(@).
6 Brandywine Innkeepers, 2005 WL 1952879, at *4.
3
Board noted that the two comparables it selected were zoned C-4, similar to the
Property which is zoned both C-4 and C-3. However, the Board did not articulate
whether any adjustments for location, size, or zoning were warranted. A record
adequate for review should include a fair statement of thc Board’s conclusions and
the material facts supporting these conclusions.7 Statements articulating the
Board’s rationale are absent from this record. Absent any distinct findings by the
Board, the Court is unable to fairly review the Board’s decision as to the land
value. Because we must remand this matter with respect to the assessment of the
building, the Board has the opportunity on remand to articulate its conclusions as
to adjustments for location, size, or zoning of the land, and the Court expresses no
opinion on that issue now.
6. For the reasons set forth above, the Board’s decision is REVERSED
and REMANDED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:.