Our Supreme Court has held that ad valorem tax records are not competent to establish the market value of real property. Star Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. , 222 N.C. 330, 332–33, 23 S.E.2d 32, 36 (1942) ; Bunn v. Harris , 216 N.C. 366, 373, 5 S.E.2d 149, 153 (1939) ; Hamilton v. Seaboard , 150 N.C. 193, 194, 63 S.E. 730, 730 (1909) ; Cardwell v. Mebane , 68 N.C. 485, 487 (1873) ("The ‘tax lists’ [are] not competent evidence to show the value of the land[.]");see also Craven County v. Hall , 87 N.C.App. 256, 258, 360 S.E.2d 479, 480 (1987).
See United States v. Anderson, 447 F.2d 833 (8 Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 918, 92 S.Ct. 943, 30 L.Ed. 2d 788; United States v. Certain Parcels of Land, etc., 261 F.2d 287 (4 Cir. 1958); State v. 45,621 Square Feet of Land, 475 P.2d 553 (Alas. 970); Chicago E.R. Co. v. Smith, 6 Ind. App. 262, 33 N.E. 241 (1893); Love v. Common School District No. 28, 192 Kan. 780, 391 P.2d 152 (1964); Scott v. O'Neil's Admr., 23 Ky.Law Rep. 331, 62 S.W. 1042 (1901); Bergen County Sewer Au. v. Borough of Little Ferry, 15 N.J. Super. 43, 83 A.2d 4 (1951); Bunn v. Harris, 216 N.C. 366, 5 S.E.2d 149 (1939); Girard Trust Co. v. Philadelphia, 248 Pa. 179, 93 A. 947 (1915); Edmondson v. Carroll, 65 S.W.2d 1107 (Tex.Civ.App. 1933). We follow the same rule. Dudley v. Minnesota N.W. Ry. Co., 77 Iowa 408, 42 N.W. 359 (1889).
In Aman v. Walker, 165 N.C. 224, 81 S.E. 162, it is stated: "If the conveyance is upon a valuable consideration and made with the actual intent to defraud creditors upon the part of the grantor alone, not participated in by the grantee and of which intent he had no notice, it is valid." See Bunn v. Harris, 216 N.C. 366, 5 S.E.2d 149. Whether adequate or inadequate, the evidence discloses the consideration for said deed was "a valuable consideration."
This charge is correct, but it is no evidence of value. Bunn v. Harris, 216 N.C. 366 (373). The defendant contended that the court erred in charging the jury, "You should find to be a fair and reasonable value of the property during the time that it has been wrongfully detained or withheld by the defendant Bullard, whatever you find to be a fair allowance or reasonable rental during the time he has had it in possession."
STACY, J., took no part in the consideration and decision of this case. Cited: Lawrence v. Power Co., 190 N.C. 669; Bunn v. Harris, 216 N.C. 373; Mfg. Co. v. R. R., 222 N.C. 332; Frazier v. Gas Co., 247 N.C. 259; Austin v. Austin, 252 N.C. 288; Drum v. Bisaner, 252 N.C. 310; Patton v. Dail, 252 N.C. 429; Jenkins v. Electric Co., 254 N.C. 566.
Modified and affirmed. Cited: Garland v. Arrowood, 117 N.C. 374 (2g); Sutton v. Wells, 177 N.C. 527 (2g); Bank v. Pack, 178 N.C. 391 (2g); Tire Co. v. Lester, 190 N.C. 414, 417 (2g); Wallace v. Philips, 195 N.C. 671 (2g); Bank v. Mackorell, 195 N.C. 744 (2g); Rhodes v. Tanner, 197 N.C. 462 (2f); Bank v. Finch, 202 N.C. 295 (2g); Theiling v. Wilson, 203 N.C. 810 (1f); Foster v. Moore, 204 N.C. 12 (2g); Dillard v. Walker, 204 N.C. 70 (2g); Bunn v. Harris, 216 N.C. 372 (2g).
This is so because, as our Supreme Court has explained, "in the valuation of [ ] land for taxation the owner is not consulted ... It is well understood that it is the custom of the assessors to fix a uniform rather than an actual valuation." Bunn v. Harris , 216 N.C. 366, 373, 5 S.E.2d 149, 153 (1939). We note, though, that the tax value of real property "may be considered by the fact-finder if its introduction is not properly objected to. "
Concerning the use of Clay County property tax records to support a decline in valuation, "[o]ur Supreme Court has held that ad valorem tax records are not competent to establish the market value of real property." Edwards v. Edwards , 251 N.C. App. 549, 551, 795 S.E.2d 823, 825 (2017) (citing Star Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R. , 222 N.C. 330, 332-33, 23 S.E.2d 32, 36 (1942) ; Bunn v. Harris , 216 N.C. 366, 373, 5 S.E.2d 149, 153 (1939) ; Hamilton v. Seaboard , 150 N.C. 193, 194, 63 S.E. 730, 730 (1909) ; Cardwell v. Mebane , 68 N.C. 485, 487 (1873) ).The admitted opinions and reports of the expert appraisers were also misconstrued or ignored.
Tax records are not favored "because 'in the valuation of land, for taxation, the owner is not consulted[,]' and 'the assessors were not witnesses in the case, sworn and subject to cross-examination[.]' " Id. at ___, 795 S.E.2d at 825 (quoting Bunn v. Harris, 216 N.C. 366, 373, 5 S.E.2d 149, 153 (1939) and Cardwell v. Mebane, 68 N.C. 485, 487 (1873)) (alteration omitted). Nonetheless, this Court has held that evidence of a property's tax value is properly relied upon where neither party has objected to its admission.
Defendants should have been allowed to present this evidence to the jury. Ad valorem tax records have historically been held incompetent as evidence of value of real property. Star Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 222 N.C. 330, 23 S.E.2d 32 (1942); Bunn v. Harris, 216 N.C. 366, 5 S.E.2d 149 (1939). In R.R. v. Land Co., 137 N.C. 330, 49 S.E. 350 (1904), the plaintiff sought to introduce the tax list to show the value of the land condemned for a railroad right of way. The Supreme Court upheld the exclusion of the tax list for that purpose and stated the reason for the rule as follows: