ALAN & JOAN RIEPER,	)
	)
Complainants,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number  00-10117
	)
MAURICE M. GOGARTY, ASSESSOR,	)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

HOLDING

Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor, AFFIRMED.

Complainant appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared by Counsel, Paula J. Lemerman, Associate County Counselor.

Case decided by Chief Hearing Officer, W. B. Tichenor.

ISSUE

The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2000.

SUMMARY

Complainants appeal the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization which sustained the valuation of the subject property. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $70,870 (assessed value of $13,460, as residential property). Complainants proposed a value of $60,000 to $65,000 (assessed value of $11,400 to $12,350). Case submitted on written statement of Alan Rieper, Complainant, and appraisal report of Janet K. Banks, appraiser for Respondent.

The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.

Complainants' Evidence

Complainant, Alan Rieper, filed with the Commission on May 23, 2001, a written statement and three (3) photographs of the interior of the subject house. The statement and photographs collectively are received as Complainants' Exhibit A.

The photographs show the original kitchen cabinets, avocado stove and original wallpaper on the staircase. Complainants have lived in the subject house since 1991 and have made few improvements to the home. In 1994 new carpet on the main level was installed and in 1992 a new bathroom vanity was installed. The total costs for carpet and the vanity was $2,550.

Complainant feels the market value of the property is $60,000 to $65,000 due to the limited improvements that have been made. Complainant asserts that other town homes have been completely re-habed on the inside and cites an example of 2546 Grayland Walk, which sold for $80,000. Complainant took issue with the sales comparison utilized by Respondent's appraiser, since the 3 sales relied upon where of home with 6 rooms and 3 bedrooms, whereas Complainant's home has 5 rooms and 2 bedrooms. Complainant also questioned one comparable having 100 square feet in living area more than the subject.

Complainants' property tax increased $200 in 1 year, a 30% increase, without any local tax increase for schools and other taxing entities.

Respondent's Evidence

Respondent placed into evidence the Appraisal Report, Exhibit 1, of Ms. Janet K. Banks, Missouri State Certified Real Estate Appraiser. Ms. Banks arrived at an opinion of value for the subject property of $72,000 based upon a sales comparison approach to value. In performing her sales comparison analysis, the appraiser relied upon the sales of properties which she deemed to be comparable to the subject property.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization.

2. An evidentiary Hearing was set for 10:30 a.m., May 1, 2001, at the St. Louis County Government Center, Clayton, Missouri. Due to another evidentiary hearing which convened at 9:30 a.m., Complainants' hearing was continued until 1:00 p.m. on May 1, 2001. Complainant appeared at 10:30 a.m., and was advised that he could return at 1:00 p.m. for his hearing. He advised staff of the assessor's office that he could not return at that time. At 1:00 p.m., Counsel for Respondent appeared and offered into evidence Exhibit 1, which was received. By Order of May 3, 2001, Complainant was given until May 25, 2001, to file with the Commission a written statement setting forth Complainant's basis for his opinion of value, with any supporting documents, to establish the value of the subject property.

3. The subject property is located at 2548 Gray land Walk, St. Louis County, Missouri. It is identified by locator number 30H110982. The property consists of a two-story, masonry and frame, condominium of average quality construction. The condominium unit was built in 1979 and appears in average condition. The residence has a total of five rooms, which includes two bedrooms and one full and two half baths. The home contains 1,174 square feet of living area. There is a full basement. The unit is a level 1 interior unit. Exhibit 1, pp. 5 & 7.

4. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 1999, to January 1, 2000.

5. Complainants' evidence was not persuasive to establish the true value in money as of January 1, 1999, to be $60,000 to $65,000, as proposed.

6. Respondent's evidence to establish value consisted of a sales comparison analysis of three properties. The properties were located within two-tenths to eight-tenths of a mile from the subject, all being within the subject condominium complex. The comparables were described as follows:

Comparable 1 (2547 Gray land Walk) sold in May, 1997, for $76,500. This property consists of a two-story, masonry and frame condominium of average quality construction, built in 1978, having 1,168 square feet of living area over a full basement. The residence contains a total of six rooms with three bedrooms and one full and one half bath. The kitchen, windows and furnace had not been updated at the time of the sale. Central air was replaced in 1994.

Comparable 2 (4412 Pegasus) sold in July, 1998, for $73,000. This property consists of a two-story brick condominium of average quality construction, built in 1974, having 1,276 square feet of living area over a full basement. The residence contains a total of six rooms with three bedrooms, and one full and two half baths. The kitchen flooring, baths, carpeting, furnace and windows were not updated at the time of purchase. Central air had been replaced in 1990.

Comparable 3 (2542 Wallford Walk) sold in August, 1997, for $70,000. This property consists of a two-story masonry and frame condominium of average quality construction, built in 1973 , having 1,036 square feet of living area over a full basement. The residence contains a total of six rooms with three bedrooms and one full and one half bath. There was no information that the residence had been updated prior to sale.

The appraiser made various adjustments to the comparable properties for differences which existed between the subject and each comparable. The net adjustments for Comparable 1 amounted to -$4,000 or 5.2% of the sales price. The net adjustments for Comparable 2 amounted to -$5,650 or 7.7% of the sales price. The net adjustments for Comparable 3 amounted to +$2,950 or 4.2% of the sales price.

The adjusted sales prices for the comparables calculated to $72,500, $67,350 and $72,950, respectively. The appraiser concluded on a $72,000 value which calculated to a value per square foot of $60.48 compared with the sales prices per square foot of living area for the comparables of $65.50, $57.21 and $67.57. Exhibit 1, pp. 6-7.

7. Respondent's evidence met the standard of clear, convincing and cogent to sustain the original assessment by the Assessor. Adjustments made by Respondent's appraiser were appropriate and accounted for the relevant differences between the comparables and the subject.

8. Exhibit 1 was received as evidence offered to sustain the original valuation by the Assessor and not as evidence advocating an increase in the value of the subject property.

Jurisdiction

The Commission has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious. Article X, section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, RSMo. The hearing officer shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination of the board of equalization, and correcting any assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary, or capricious. Section 138.431.4, RSMo.

Board of Equalization Presumption

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization. Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888, 895 (Mo. banc 1978); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650, 656 (Mo. 1968); May Department Stores Co. v. STC, 308 S.W.2d 748, 759 (Mo. 1958). There is no presumption that the assessor's valuation is correct. Section 138.431.3, RSMo.

Standard for Valuation

Section 137.115, RSMo 1994, requires that property be assessed based upon its true value in money which is defined as the price a property would bring when offered for sale by one willing or desirous to sell and bought by one who is willing or desirous to purchase but who is not compelled to do so. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Missouri Baptist Children's Home v. State Tax Commission, 867 S.W.2d 510, 512 (Mo. banc 1993). It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, 897 (Mo. banc 1978).

Respondent's Burden of Proof

The Respondent has imposed upon him by the provisions of Section 137.115.1, RSMo, the burden of proof to present clear, convincing and cogent evidence to sustain a valuation on residential property which is made by a computer, computer-assisted method or a computer program. There is a presumption in this appeal that the original valuation, which was sustained by the Board of Equalization, was made by a computer, computer-assisted method or a computer program. There was no evidence to rebut the presumption, therefore, in order to sustain the valuation of the subject property at $70,870, appraised value, Respondent's evidence must come within the guidelines established by the legislature and must clearly and convincingly persuade the Hearing Officer as to the value sought to be sustained.

The statutory guidelines for evidence to meet the standard of clear, convincing and cogent include the following:

(1) The findings of the assessor based on an appraisal of the property by generally accepted appraisal techniques; and

(2) The purchase prices from sales of at least three comparable properties and the address or location thereof. As used in this paragraph, the word comparable means that:

(a) Such sale was closed at a date relevant to the property valuation; and

(b) Such properties are not more than one mile from the site of the disputed property, except where no similar properties exist within one mile of the disputed property, the nearest comparable property shall be used. Such property shall be within five hundred square feet in size of the disputed property, and resemble the disputed property in age, floor plan, number of rooms, and other relevant characteristics.

Section 137.115.1(1) & (2).

Clear, cogent and convincing evidence is that evidence which clearly convinces the trier of fact of the affirmative proposition to be proved. It does not mean that there may not be contrary evidence. Grissum v. Reesman, 505 S.W.2d 81, 85, 86 (Mo. Div. 2, 1974). The quality of proof, to be clear and convincing must be more than a mere preponderance but does not require beyond a reasonable doubt. 30 AmJur2d. 345-346, Evidence section 1167. "For evidence to be clear and convincing, it must instantly tilt the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition and the fact finder's mind is left with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true." Matter of O'Brien, 600 S.W.2d 695, 697 (Mo. App. 1980).

Complainants' Burden of Proof

In order to prevail, Complainants must present an opinion of market value and substantial and persuasive evidence that the proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject property on January 1, 1999. Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, at 897. Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See, Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959). Persuasive evidence is that evidence which has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact. The persuasiveness of evidence does not depend on the quantity or amount thereof but on its effect in inducing belief. Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).

Owner's Opinion of Value

The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value. Boten v. Brecklein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 95 (Sup. 1970). The owner's opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation. Shelby County R-4 School District v. Hermann, 392 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Sup. 1965).

Methods of Valuation

Missouri courts have approved the comparable sales or market approach, the cost approach (replacement or construction) and the income approach as recognized methods of arriving at fair market value. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. STC, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (App. E.D. 1993); Aspenhof Corp. v. STC, 789 S.W.2d 867, 869 (App. E.D. 1990); Quincy Soybean Company, Inc., v. Lowe, 773 S.W.2d 503, 504 (App. E.D. 1989), citing Del-Mar Redevelopment Corp v. Associated Garages, Inc., 726 S.W.2d 866, 869 (App. E.D. 1987) and State ex rel. State Highway Comm'n v. Southern Dev. Co., 509 S.W.2d 18, 27 (Mo. Div. 2 1974).

Respondent Establishes Value

Respondent's appraisal of the subject property provides clear and convincing evidence which supports the original valuation of $70,870. Ms. Banks made appropriate adjustments for the differences between each comparable sale and the subject property. For example, she properly recognized that the existence of an additional bedroom in each of the comparables would have an effect on value. She adjusted each of the sales prices downward $1,000 to account for this additional feature in the comparables which did not exist in the subject. The adjustment is appropriate.

A downward adjustment was made to the second comparable to account for the fact that it contained 102 more square feet of living area than the subject. In like manner an upward adjustment was required to comparable 3 for the fact that it had 138 square feet less living area than the subject. The adjustments for the differences in the number of full or half baths was also appropriately accounted for by the appraiser.

The fact that the appraiser was able to verify that neither comparable 1 or 2 had been updated is important and it gives strength and validity to the appraisal of the subject. The fact that the sale price of comparable 3 was lower than either comparables 1 or 2 provides a reasonable basis that it had not been updated at the time of sale. The conclusion is further supported by Complainant's statement that an updated unit in the subject complex had sold for $80,000. Had any of the three comparables been updated, it would certainly appear that they would have commanded sales prices far in excess of the $70,000 to $76,500 sales range.

Respondent's evidence was more than sufficient to sustain the original valuation made by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization.

Complainants' Evidence Unpersuasive

Complainants' opinion of value is without probative effect in this case. The owner's opinion of value must find a foundation and basis in more than unsupported opinion. The gist of Mr. Rieper's argument is that his condominium unit has not been updated and therefore would not command a sale price of $70,870 as determined by the assessor. Mr. Rieper contends that due to his unit being not updated it would only bring $60,000 to $65,000.

No supporting evidence was presented upon which the Hearing Officer can concur with Complainant's opinion. The sales of three very similar condominium units, all within the subject development establish that units nearly identical to the subject are selling in the $70,000 to $76,000 range. The un-updated comparable (Comp. 1) most like the subject in total living area sold for $76,500. Even after appropriate adjustments, the indicated value of the subject property was $72,500.

The comparable 3, which was smaller than the subject, but required the smallest dollar and percentage adjustments by the appraiser provides evidence of a value for the subject of $72,950. The comparable 2, which required the largest dollar and percentage adjustments provided an indicated value of $67,350. A value still in excess of the owner's opinion. No comparable sales of units in the $60,000 to $65,000 range were presented by Complainant to provide any basis of support for his opinion. Accordingly, Complainant failed to meet his burden of proof to establish the value asserted

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2000 is set at $13,460.

A party may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of such decision. The application shall contain specific grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous. Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the appeal is based will result in summary denial. Section 138.432, RSMo 1994.

If an application for review of this decision is made to the Commission, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the Commission. If no application for review is received by the Commission within thirty (30) days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of St. Louis County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall disburse the protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accord with the decision on the underlying assessment in this appeal. If any or all protested taxes have been disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031(8), RSMo, either party may apply to the circuit court having jurisdiction of the cause for disposition of the protested taxes held by the taxing authority.

Any Finding of Fact which is a Conclusion of Law or Decision shall be so deemed. Any Decision which is a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law shall be so deemed.

SO ORDERED June 5, 2001.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

W. B. Tichenor

Chief Hearing Officer