JEAN G. SEIPP, ) ) Complainant, ) ) v. ) Appeal Number 00-10118 ) 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 $45,210, assessed value of $8,590.
Complainant appeared pro se.
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 $45,210 (assessed value of $8,590, 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.
Complainant's Evidence
Complainant presented no evidence to establish value for the subject condominium unit. She only testified as to value that it should be in the mid $40,000 range. Complainant's argument had to do with the matter of discrimination in taxes. According to the testimony of Ms. Seipp, there are 23 units in the subject development that paid $595.46 in property taxes; 1 unit paid $589.91, 20 units paid $582.29, 2 units paid $521.29, 1 unit paid $520.59, 1 unit paid $508.12 and 1 unit paid $504.65. Complainant asserted that since all of the units are the same all should pay the same in taxes.
Respondent's Evidence
Respondent placed into evidence the appraisal report of Bruce Fenwick, Residential Real Estate Appraiser for Respondent. Mr. Fenwick arrived at an opinion of value for the subject property of $47,000 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 4248 Kay Lane, St. Louis County, Missouri. It is identified by locator number 26H230720. The subject is further described as Unit 5, Building 3 of Blackwoods Chalet Condominium. It is a one-story, brick, condominium of average quality construction. It was built in 1975. The unit has a total of five rooms, which includes two bedrooms, one full bath, and contains 850 square feet of living area. There is no basement.
2. Complainants presented no evidence to establish value.
3. The valuation performed by Mr. Fenwick relied upon sales of properties he 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 condominium development and on the same street. The comparables were described as follows:
Comparable 1 (4294 Kay Lane, Unit 6) sold in July, 1998, for $49,000. This condominium was built in 1975 and is identical to the subject.
Comparable 2 (4294 Kay Lane, Unit 7) sold in September, 1998, for $48,000. This condominium was built in 1975 and is identical to the subject.
Comparable 3 (4278 Kay Lane, Unit 5) sold in June, 1998, for $47,900. This condominium was built in 1975 and is identical to the subject.
There were only a couple of adjustments made by the appraiser for condition and location, due to the fact that in all other respects the comparable sale properties were identical to the subject. The appraiser concluded on a $47,000 value, at $55.29 per square foot of living area. This compared to per square foot values of $57.65, $56.47 and $56.35 for the three comparables..
4. Respondent's evidence met the standard of clear, convincing and cogent to sustain the original assessment by the Assessor.
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 $119,950, 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 of value in this appeal. Respondent's evidence met the statutory standard to sustain the valuation originally made on the property.
Complainant's point of contention relates to the fact that identical condominium units pay different taxes. A calculation based upon the total taxes paid and the tax levy for the subject development produces the following results: 23 units are valued at $45,210 (including the subject); 1 unit is valued at $44,930; 20 units are valued at $44,350; 2 units are valued at $39,700, 1 unit is valued at $39,650, 1 unit is valued at $38,700 and 1 unit is valued at $38,440. This means that of these 49 units, 44 of them (89.7%) are valued at or within 2% of the value of the subject. Only 5 units or just over 10% of the units are valued at 85 to 88% of the value of the subject.
The Hearing Officer certainly understands Complainant's view that since each of these condominium units are the same (except that some buildings contain 8 and some 10 units) that their taxes should also be the same. However, the valuation of the real property is not an exact science. Variances in valuation can and do happen, when properties are valued under a mass appraisal computer system such as in St. Louis County. However, even the 3 sales comparables demonstrate that identical units can have different market values. If the 3 comparables were to be put on the tax roll for 1999 at the values each sold for, which represents their fair market value, they would pay $643.32, $630.19 and $628.88 respectively a variance in taxes paid of just over 2%.
The evidence on this record establishes that the overall valuation of the various condominium units is very close. Uniformity in taxation does not require mathematical exactness. What is required is general equality and uniformity. When nearly 90% of the units are valued within 2% of each other and the market evidence establishes that these units may sell for prices that will vary by approximately 2% ($49,000 - $47,900), uniformity has been achieved.
By Complainant's own testimony, her unit's value would be in the mid-$40,000 range. It is so valued. The fact that a small percentage of the units (5 out of 49) are apparently undervalued in relation to the subject and some 43 other units does not establish that the Commission should provide a different assessment for Complainant.
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 $8,590.
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