CAROL KHAWAJA NEWLAND,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 01-52000
	)
SHAWN ORDWAY, ASSESSOR,	)
COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

HOLDING

Decision of the Cole County Board of Equalization reducing the assessment made by the Assessor, SET ASIDE, Hearing Officer finds true value in money for the subject property for tax years 2001 and 2002 to be $82,500, assessed value of $15,680.

Complainant appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared in person and by Counsel, William Tackett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney.

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

ISSUES

The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2001.

SUMMARY

Complainant appeals the decision of the Cole County Board of Equalization which reduced the valuation of the subject property. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $121,500 (assessed value of $23,090, as residential property). The Board reduced the value to $103,300 (assessed value of $19,630) Complainant proposed a value of $73,000 (assessed value of $13,870). Respondent proposed a value of $98,000 (assessed value of $18,620). A hearing was conducted on November 1, 2001, at the Cole County Courthouse Annex, Jefferson City, Missouri.

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

Complainant's Evidence

Complainant testified in her own behalf and offered into evidence two exhibits. Exhibit A, an appraisal report prepared by Kamia R. Payne, Missouri State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser, opining a value of $73,000. Exhibit B, a prepared statement of Complainant's setting forth various factors which Complainant believed should be considered in the valuation of her property. Complainant's opinion of value was based upon the Payne appraisal. Both exhibits were received into evidence.

Respondent's Evidence

Respondent testified in his own behalf and offered into evidence two exhibits. Exhibit 1, an appraisal report prepared by Respondent, Missouri State Certified Real Estate Appraiser, opining a value of $98,000. Exhibit 2, assessment data on the subject property relating to the original valuation by the prior assessor and the valuation made by the Board.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2. The subject property is located at 2924 Rock Ridge Road, Jefferson City, Missouri. It is identified by parcel number 481522223. The property consists of a .95 of an acre lot improved by a 34-35 year old house, with 8 rooms, 3 bedrooms and 2 and a half baths. The house contains 1,985 square feet of living area. It has a one-car attached garage and a two-car detached garage. There is no basement. The house is a brick and frame structure in average condition. Exhibits A and 1.

3. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement during the year 2001.

3. The presumption of correct assessment by the Board was rebutted by both Exhibit A and Exhibit 1.

4. The true value in money for the subject property as of January 1, 2001, is $82,500, assessed value of $15,680.

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).

Weight to be Given Evidence

The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule or method in determining true value in money, but is free to consider all pertinent facts and estimates and give them such weight as reasonably they may be deemed entitled. The relative weight to be accorded any relevant factor in a particular case is for the Hearing Officer to decide. St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977); St. Louis County v. STC, 515 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. 1974); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968).

Trier of Fact

The Hearing Officer as the trier of fact may consider the testimony of an expert witness and give it as much weight and credit as she may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. The Hearing Officer is not bound by the opinions of experts who testify on the issue of reasonable value, but may believe all or none of the expert's testimony and accept it in part or reject it in part. St. Louis County v. Boatmen's Trust Co., 857 S.W.2d 453, 457 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Vincent by Vincent v. Johnson, 833 S.W.2d 859, 865 (Mo. 1992); Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Mo. banc 1981).

Opinion Testimony by Experts

If specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert on that subject, by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto.

The facts or data upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing and must be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject and must be otherwise reliable, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. Section 490.065, RSMo; Courtroom Handbook on Missouri Evidence, Wm. A. Schroeder, Sections 702-505, pp. 325-350; Wulfing v. Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 133 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992)

Complainant's Appraisal Report

The appraisal report presented by Complainant relied upon the sales of three properties deemed to be comparable to the subject to arrive at an opinion of value of $73,000, as of June 1, 2001. The June 1, 2001, appraisal date is not detrimental to finding a value for January 1, 2001. Neither Complainant's appraiser, nor Respondent made any time adjustment to sales relied upon which occurred in advance of the appraisal date for the individual report.

Comparable 1 is a property which is located next door to the subject (2918 Rock Ridge). The property sold in May, 2001, for $70,000. This property consists of a 1.05 acre site, improved by a 43 year old house, with 1,170 square feet of living area. The house has a total of six rooms, with two bedrooms and one bath. It has a full basement that is unfinished and a two car carport.

Comparable 2 is a property which is located approximately 5 miles from the subject (4800 Highway 54). The property sold in May, 2001, for $69,000. This property consists of a 1.5 acre lot, improved by a 43 year old house, with 2,188 square feet of living area. The house has a total of 10 rooms, with four bedrooms and one bath. It has no basement and a two-car carport.

Comparable 3 is a property which is located approximately 1.75 miles southeast of the subject (2617 Southridge). The property sold in December, 2000, for $89,500. This property consists of a .45 of an acre lot, improved by a 39 year old house, with 1,680 square feet of living area. The house as a total of 6 rooms, with three bedrooms and one bath. It has a full basement with 810 square feet of finished area consisting of a bedroom and a bathroom.

All three properties are comparable for purposes of arriving at an indicated value for the subject. The appraiser made adjustments for the various differences between each comparable property and the subject. All adjustments appear to be within an acceptable range for the comparable properties and the subject. The net adjustments for the three comparable were +2.1%, +7.2% and -7.8%, respectively. The adjusted values for the comparable were $71,500, $74,000 and $82,500.

Respondent's Appraisal Report

Respondent's appraisal relied upon the sales of four properties deemed comparable to the subject by Respondent to arrive at an opinion of value of $98,000 for the subject property.

Comparable 1 is located approximately 12 blocks from the subject (2010 Meadowlake Road). The property sold in September, 2000, for $115,000. This property consists of a .55 of an acre lot, improved by a 30 year old house, with 2,121 square feet of living area. The house has a total of eight rooms, with four bedrooms and two and a half baths. It has no basement and a two-car attached garage and a two-car detached garage.

Comparable 2 is the same property as Complainant's comparable 3.

Comparable 3 is located approximately 2 to 3 blocks from the subject (3207 Rock Ridge Road). The property sold in September, 1999, for $120,000. This property consists of a 1.8 acre lot, improved by a 36 year old house, with 1,588 square feet of living area. The house has a total of 6 rooms, with three bedrooms and one bath. The house has a full basement, with 428 square feet of finish, consisting of a family room and a bathroom. It has a one-car basement garage and a two-car detached garage.

Comparable 4 is the same property as Complainant's comparable 1.

All four properties are comparable for purposes of arriving at an indicated value for the subject. The appraiser made adjustments for the various differences between each comparable property and the subject. All adjustments appear to be within a generally acceptable range for the comparable properties and the subject. The net adjustments for the three comparable were -14.6%, +1.5%, -8.9 and +21.8%%, respectively. The adjusted values for the comparable were $98,210, $90,855, $109,315 and $85,225.

Hearing Officer Finds Value

Based upon the two appraisal reports presented in this appeal, the Hearing Officer arrives at a determination of value for the subject property. Respondent raised various questions or issues about the appraisal report presented by Complainant. Essentially the questions or points of criticism have to do with the fact that the Payne appraisal was a Limited Summary Appraisal Report. None of the issues raised by Respondent were of sufficient nature to reject the Payne appraisal, especially in light of the fact that both appraisers utilized two of the same comparable properties in making their appraisals.

The range of indicated values as per the two appraisals is $71,500, $74,000, $82,500, $85,225, $90,855, $98,210 and $109,315. The median indicated value is $85,225 and the average is $87,370. The range of indicated values for the two comparable relied upon by both appraisers is $71,500, $82,500, $85,225 and $90,855. The median of these value is $83,860. The average is $82,520.

2918 Rock Ridge Property

The property at 2918 Rock Ridge, which is located next to the subject is overall the most similar to the subject. Furthermore, with its location next to the subject, this gives a very good indicator of a property's value in the subject neighborhood. The two appraisers made very similar adjustments to this comparable. Those adjustments were as follows.

Complainant's appraiser made a -$1,500 adjustment for Condition; a +$1,500 adjustment for only one bath; a +$10,000 adjustment for living area; a -$5,500 for full basement; a -$3,000 for garage/carport. Respondent made a +$3,500 adjustment for age; no condition adjustment; a +$2,500 adjustment for only one bath; a +$12,225 adjustment for living area; a -$5,000 adjustment for full basement and a +$2,000 adjustment for garage/carport.

By placing equal weight on each appraiser's adjustments the Hearing Officer determines the following adjustments: Age: +$1,750; Condition: -$750; Bath: +$2,000; Living Area: +$11,110; Basement: -$4,000; Garage/Carport: -$500. This results in net adjustments of +$9,610, for an indicated value of $79,610.

2617 Southridge Property

The other sale relied upon by both appraisers was the property at 2617 Southridge. For this property both appraiser made a -$1,000 adjustment for closing costs. Likewise both made a +$3,000 adjustment for site. Respondent made a +$2,240 age adjustment, while Ms. Payne made none. Ms. Payne made a+$1,500 condition adjustment, while Respondent made none. The bath adjustment was +$1,500 and +$2,500 for Complainant's and Respondent's appraisals respectively. Ms. Payne adjusted for living area with a +$3,500, while Respondent adjusted a +$4,575. The basement adjustment was -$8,500 by Ms. Payne and -$7,500 by Respondent. The finished area adjustment for the basement was -$7,500 by Ms. Payne and -$5,860 by Respondent. The garage/carport adjustment was +$4,000 and +$2,500 respectively for Complainant's appraisal adjusted a -$3,500 for fireplace, and Respondent's appraisals adjusted a -$2,000 for fireplace.

Placing equal weight on each appraiser's adjustments for this property results in the following adjustments: Closing: -$1,000; Site: +$3,000; Age: +$1,120; Condition +$750; Bath: +$2,000; Living Area: +$4,040; Basement: -$8,000; Basement Finish: -$6,680; Garage: +$3,250; Fireplace: -$2,750. This results in net adjustments of -$4,270, for an indicated value of $85,230.

The Hearing Officer arrives at a value of $82,500, placing equal weight on the two indicated values for the 2918 Rock Ridge ($79,610) and 2617 Southridge ($85,230) properties.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for Cole County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2001 and 2002 is set at $15,680.

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 Cole 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 November 29, 2001.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

W. B. Tichenor

Chief Hearing Officer