Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
3 <br /> From: Walker Busby Jr <walkerbusby@gmail.com> <br /> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2023 11:48 AM <br /> To: Nancy Freeman; Bonnie Hammersley; Anna Richards; Amy Fowler; Earl <br /> McKee; Jean Hamilton; Phyllis Portie-Ascott; Sally Greene; Roger Gunn; <br /> Steven "Chad" Phillips <br /> Subject: [EXTERNAL MAIL! ] Re: Overpayment of property taxes in 2021 <br /> Hello: <br /> My responses to your letter AND the professor (just one lawyer's opinion <br /> and an incorrect one I suggest) would include: <br /> 1) Your department has admitted a serious 'error' in the specified <br /> square footage and that I was indeed overcharged. You are now making <br /> excuses not to re-pay me. I am now quoting the professor, " Very few <br /> appraisals are based on the actual physical inspections of the property <br /> at issue" "and at the end of the day it was a judgement error" . Your <br /> professor also states and I quote "But if the error was truly one of <br /> judgment, then I don't think a refund is justified regardless of how big <br /> the error was" . This was a physical inspection however and any error <br /> was not "judgment", therefore a refund would be entirely appropriate. <br /> 2) 'Clerical' error and and case law also seem to be key words in the <br /> 'professors' reasoning and clerical errors are valid as reasons for <br /> issuing refunds. I suggest that there MUST have been a 'clerical' <br /> error in the appraisal of my house by your appraiser, which according to <br /> the professor would again allow for a refund. The appraiser wrote down an <br /> incorrect length because he misread his monitor; when back at his office, <br /> he couldn't read his writing and typed in the wrong numbers; he merely <br /> typed in the wrong numbers when calculating the square <br /> footage. . . . . . . . . .ALL Clerical errors, NOT an error in judgement. Your <br /> staff clearly had access to all the permits needed for this addition, <br /> otherwise you would not have known to re-appraise the house. Easily <br /> found within these permits is the square footage of the addition and that <br /> it was brick. . . .all that was needed, besides your actual physical <br /> verification, to re-value the house. Contained within these permits are <br /> the 525 sq feet that were added to an existing 2450 square feet home <br /> data. . .not possibly resulting in 4216 sq feet. <br /> 3) If the appraiser is a member of your staff, has he been questioned <br /> about this matter? <br /> 4) The appraiser never asked about the attic above the room, nor came <br /> inside to look at it. It is an 'unfinished' attic. <br /> 5) I am sure that in a year when there are NOT countywide re-assessments <br /> in value, that the increase in square footage largely determines an <br /> increase in taxes. <br /> 6) You know your department made an egregious error, yet you had to ask <br /> a professor whether or not LEGALLY you have to correct the mistake. <br /> Disappointing. I suggest the professor failed to make his case; there was <br /> no 'judgment' , but an actual physical appraisal, that was clearly <br /> wrong. <br /> Commissioners, please correct this wrong. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Walker Busby <br />