GEORGE & BARBARA BINGER,	)
	)
Complainants,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 01-46501
	)
RONALD CRAIGHEAD, ASSESSOR,	)
CALLAWAY COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

HOLDING

Decision of the Callaway County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor, AFFIRMED, Hearing Officer finds true value in money for the subject property for tax years 2001 and 2002 to be $92,160, assessed value of $17,510.

Complainants appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared in person and by Counsel, Jeff Preckshot, 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 Callaway County Board of Equalization which sustained the valuation of the subject property. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $92,160 (assessed value of $17,510, as residential property). Complainant proposed a value of $75,000 (assessed value of $14,250). A hearing was conducted on November 14, 2001, at the Callaway County Courthouse, Fulton, Missouri.

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

Complainants' Evidence

Complainants testified in their own behalf. Exhibits A and B were offered and received into evidence. Exhibit A was a statement prepared by Complainants setting for the basis for their appeal. Exhibit B was four photographs, three of which were of a property at 903 Court Street, Fulton, and one of a property at the northeast corner of 9th and Nichols, Fulton. Complainants' opinion of value was $75,000.

Respondent's Evidence

Respondent placed into evidence the testimony of Mr. Marcellous Kronk, Missouri State Certified Real Estate Appraiser. The appraiser testified as to his appraisal of the subject property. The Appraisal Report, Exhibit 1, of Mr. Kronk was received into evidence. Mr. Kronk arrived at an opinion of value for the subject property of $95,000 based upon a sales comparison approach to value. In performing his sales comparison analysis, the appraiser relied upon the sales of six properties which he deemed to be comparable to the subject property. Mr. Kronk also performed a cost approach to value. The Kronk appraisal was offered to support the assessors original valuation of $92,160.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2. The subject property is located at 909 Court Street, Fulton, Missouri. It is identified by parcel number 13417144. The property consists of a lot improved by a one and a half story frame house. The house contains 1,612 square feet of living area, six rooms, three bedrooms and one and a half baths, a partial basement and a two-car detached garage.

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

4. Complainants' evidence was not persuasive to establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2001, to be $75,000, as proposed.

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 he 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).

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).

DECISION

The basis for Complainant's appeal and their opinion of value relates to the rate of increase in the valuation of their property over a five year period. Complainant's view the rate of increase (61% in total assessment) for the current assessment cycle and the increase (48%) in assessed valuation five years ago to be excessive. Complainant's also asserted that the increase exceeded their growth in income and their income potential is limited due to their status as retired persons. No evidence was presented by Complainants which would provide any substantiation or support for their opinion of value of $75,000.

Valuation of property for ad valorem tax purposes must be on the basis of the fair market value of the property being valued, or in this instance, the property being appealed. The only evidence on this record which addresses the valuation of the property from the basis of what a willing buyer and seller would have agreed to as a price for the subject property in January, 2001 is the appraisal of Mr. Kronk. Mr. Kronk appraised the property relying on both a cost and sales comparison approach. The value determined by the appraiser supported the valuation which Respondent had made on the property and which the Board of Equalization had sustained.

Level of increase from one assessment cycle to another has not been recognized by the Commission or the courts of this state as a valid methodology to arrive at the fair market value of property. The cost and sales comparison approaches to value have been recognized and endorsed by the Commission and courts as appropriate methods to value property. There is no statutory authority for the Hearing Officer to arbitrarily limit the percentage of increase from one assessment cycle to another. The percentage of increase from one assessment cycle to another do nothing to establish fair market value, they at best are indicators that property has most likely been underassessed in a prior assessment cycle. This is especially true when the valuing being appealed is supported by an appraisal relying on two recognized and accepted valuation approaches.

Complainants' evidence did not meet the level of substantial and persuasive to establish the value proposed. Respondent's evidence provided substantial and persuasive support for his original valuation. The true value in money (fair market value) of the subject property on January 1, 2001, is $92,160.

ORDER

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

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2001 and 2002 is set at $17,510.

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 Callaway 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