EDWARD G. & JUDITH M. KELLEY, ) ) Complainants, ) ) v. ) Appeal Number 00-10093 ) MAURICE M. GOGARTY, ASSESSOR, ) ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor, AFFIRMED, true value in money for the subject property for tax year 2000 $161,630, assessed value of $30,710.
Complainants appeared not.
Respondent appeared by Counsel, Paula J. Lemerman, Associate County Counselor.
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, 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 $161,630 (assessed value of $30,710, as residential property). A hearing was conducted on March 6, 2001, at the St. Louis County Government Center, Clayton, Missouri.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainants' Evidence
Complainants did not appear for evidentiary hearing.
Respondent's Evidence
Respondent placed into evidence the appraisal report of Janet K. Banks, Missouri State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser. Ms. Banks arrived at an opinion of value for the subject property of $163,000 based upon a sales comparison approach to value. The appraisal report was offered for the purpose of sustaining the original value determined by the assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property consists of the property located at 14343 Rainy Lake Drive, Chesterfield, Missouri. It is identified by locator number 18R340315. The subject consists of a .33 of an acre lot improved by a one-story, vinyl sided, single-family home of average quality construction. It was built in 1977. The house has a total of eight rooms, including four bedrooms, two full baths and contains 2,202 square feet of living area. There is a full basement and an attached two-car garage.
2. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 1999, to January 1, 2000.
3. Complainants presented no evidence to establish value.
4. The valuation performed by Ms. Banks relied upon sales of properties she deemed to be comparable to the subject. The properties were located within less than a quarter of a mile of the subject. In fact all comparables were located in the subject's subdivision. The comparables were described as follows:
Comparable 1 (1227 Finger Lake Court) sold in October, 1997, for $164,000. This property consists of a .25 of an acre lot improved by a one-story frame and masonry, single- family residence, built in 1978, having 2,288 square feet of living area over a full basement. The residence contains a total of eight rooms with four bedrooms and two full baths. There is an attached two-car garage.
Comparable 2 (14226 Rainy Lake Drive) sold in March, 1998, for $157,800. This property consists of a .23 of an acre lot improved by a one-story frame single-family residence, built in 1978, having 1,800 square feet of living area over a full basement. The residence contains a total of seven rooms with three bedrooms and two full baths. There is an attached two-car garage.
Comparable 3 (14251 Finger Lake Drive) sold in October, 1997, for $186,000. This property consists of a .28 of an acre lot improved by a one-story masonry and frame single-family residence, built in 1977, having 2,288 square feet of living area over a full basement. The residence contains a total of seven rooms with four bedrooms and two full baths. There is an attached two-car garage.
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 -$2,520 or 1.5% of the sales price. The net adjustments for Comparable 2 amounted to +$11,840 or 7.5% of the sales price. The net adjustments for Comparable 3 amounted to -$12,720 or 6.8% of the sales price.
The adjusted sales prices for the comparables calculated to $161,480, $169,640 and $173,280, respectively. The appraiser concluded on a $163,000 value which calculated to a value per square foot of $74.02 compared with the sales prices per square foot of living area for the comparables of $71.68, $87.67 and $81.29.
5. 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. Adjustments as a percentage of sale price were within an acceptable range for this appraisal.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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 $161,630, 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).
DECISION
Respondent was the only party to present evidence in this appeal. Respondent's evidence met the statutory standard to sustain the valuation originally made on the property. Complainants failed to appear and present any evidence of value upon which the Hearing Officer could make a determination as to fair market value of the subject property. In the absence of any evidence contrary to the appraisal presented by Respondent, Complainants cannot prevail.
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 $30,710.
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 March 14, 2001.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
W. B. Tichenor
Chief Hearing Officer