JEROME SCHMITZ,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 01-57000
	)
BILL OVERSCHMIDT, ASSESSOR,	)
FRANKLIN COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

HOLDING

Decision of the Franklin County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor, SET ASIDE, Hearing Officer finds true value in money for the subject property for tax years 2000 to be $12,500, assessed value of $1,500.

Complainant appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared in person and by Counsel, Mark Vincent, 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, 2001.

SUMMARY

Complainant appeals the decision of the Franklin County Board of Equalization which sustained the valuation of the subject property. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $7,420 (assessed value of $890, as vacant and unused agricultural land). Complainant proposed a value of $6,200 (assessed value of $744). A hearing was conducted on November 28, 2001, at the Franklin County North Annex, Union, 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 his own behalf. Complainant asserted that Respondent and the Board of Equalization valued the subject property as residential. He also asserted that there were two other tracts of land adjoining the subject tract which were agricultural graded instead of being valued at fair market value like the subject. Complainant took exception the fact that the valuation of the subject property had increased greatly since the last assessment.

Respondent's Evidence

Respondent offered into evidence the appraisal report (Exhibit 1) of Deborah J. Jennings, Missouri State Certified Real Estate Appraiser. Ms. Jennings testified as to her appraisal of the subject property. Exhibit 1 was received into evidence. Ms. Jennings arrived at an opinion of value for the subject property of $12,500 based upon a sales comparison approach to value. In performing her sales comparison analysis, the appraiser relied upon the sales of properties three which she deemed to be comparable to the subject property. Exhibit 1, p. 8.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2. The subject property is located on Door Ford Road, near Beaufort, Missouri. The proper consists of 7.27 acres of undeveloped, vacant and unused land. The property is identified by parcel number 57238277.

3. Complainant's evidence was not substantial and persuasive to establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2001, to be $6,200, as proposed.

4.     Respondent's evidence met the standard of substantial and persuasive to both rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization and to establish the true value in money for the subject property as of January 1, 2001, to be $12,500, assessed value as agricultural land of $1,500.

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 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).

Agricultural Land Valuation

Section 137.017.1, RSMo requires that for general assessment purposes that the true value in money of land that is used as agricultural land shall be that value which such land has for agricultural purposes. Such land is valued under agricultural land grades established by the State Tax Commission. 12 CSR 30-4.010.

Section 137.017.4, RSMo requires that for general property assessment purposes the true value in money of vacant and unused land which is classified as agricultural property shall be its fair market value.

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.

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).

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).

DECISION

Complainant felt that the increase in the valuation of the subject land from the 1999 assessment to the 2001 assessment was excessive. For the 1999 assessment the subject property had been given an agricultural land grade value, instead of being valued at its fair market value and then assessed at the 12% agricultural assessment rate. However, the land was not being used for the production of crops, the raising of livestock, not was it shown to be enrolled in any federal land program. Accordingly, the land was not being used for agricultural use. The Assessor properly corrected the assessment for the 2001 cycle, by placing the property on the assessment roll at its fair market value, but at the agricultural assessment level. This resulted in a sizeable increase in the land's valuation.

Complainant presented no evidence upon which a determination could be made that the fair market value of the land would be only $6,200. He sought to address the issue of two tracts of land that lay next to the subject property and the fact that they were valued based upon agricultural land grade, although they were vacant and unused. Complainant provided no documentation upon which essential facts relating to these tracts might be ascertained relative to this claim. Furthermore, even assuming that these two tracts were agriculturally graded and should have been valued at fair market value, that is insufficient to establish discrimination which would warrant the subject property being agricultural graded, instead of being valued at its fair market value.

There is no dispute that the subject tract is vacant and unused. There is no dispute that the land is not used for growing crops, raising cattle, or participation in a federal aid program. There is no dispute relative to it being assessed at the agricultural rate of 12%. The only dispute relates to what the fair market value of the land is.

The only evidence developed in this record which addresses the value of the land is the appraisal report performed by Ms. Jennings. Ms. Jennings used three land sales which all occurred during the year 2000. All three sales were within four and a half miles of the subject. Each comparable was of a size to be used for this appraisal. The land areas were 7.24, 12.98 and 4.79 acres. The per acre sales prices were $1,727, $1,800 and $1,775. Essentially the size of the tracts did not greatly effect the sales prices. No adjustment was necessary for the first sale and the only adjustments required for the second and third sales was for the difference in size between each comparable and the subject. The evidence reaches the level of clear and convincing that the per acre value of the subject property is $1,727 or $12,500 for the entire tract.

Under the mandate of Section 137.017, the subject land must be assessed at 12% of the fair market value of $12,500.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for Franklin 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 $1,500.

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 Franklin 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 December 11, 2001.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

W. B. Tichenor

Chief Hearing Officer