FRANCES CRAWFORD, ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) Appeal Number 00-10090 ) 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 is $122,260, assessed value of $23,230.
Complainant 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
Complainant appeals 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 $122,260 (assessed value of $23,230, as residential property). Case set for evidentiary 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.
Complainant's Evidence
Complainant did not appear for the evidentiary hearing.
Respondent's Evidence
Respondent placed into evidence the Certificate of Value on the sale of the subject property to Complainant, dated May 4, 1998, filed with the Assessor's Office of St. Louis County. Said Certificate of Value showing that the subject property had been purchased by Complainant for $130,000.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property consists of a condominium unit located at 5545 Pierre Court, St. Louis County, Missouri. It is further identified by locator number 31M231116.
2. Complainant did not present any evidence to establish what a willing buyer and seller would have agreed to as a price for the subject condominium on January 1, 2000.
3. Respondent's evidence was clear and convincing that the subject property's fair market value would be at least $122,260.
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.
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).
Complainant's Burden of Proof
In order to prevail, Complainant 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).
Sale of Subject
Evidence of the actual sales price of property is admissible to establish value at the time of an assessment, provided that such evidence involves a voluntary purchase not too remote in time. The actual sale price is a method that may be considered for estimating true value. The actual sales price, between a willing seller who is not obligated to sell and a willing buyer who is not compelled to buy, establishes an outer limit on the value of real property. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. STC, 854 S.W.2d 526 (App. E.D. 1993).
DECISION
The Hearing Officer has previously addressed in detail (See, Memorandum, dated 9/12/00) the Complainant's assertion that the valuation and assessment of condominiums should be different than non-condominium property. The Hearing Officer's Memorandum is incorporated by reference as if set out in full in this Decision and Order. The Hearing Officer has reviewed each item of correspondence from Complainant and finds no basis upon which a determination of value other than that of $122,260 as established by the Assessor can be made.
Respondent's evidence clearly establishes that the market value (true value in money) of the subject condominium was at least $122,260. The Certificate of Value establishes that in May, 1998, Complainant paid $130,000 for the subject property. Complainant failed to present any evidence which would provide a basis for a valuation of the subject property at less than $122,260.
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 $23,230.
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