MAX & JANICE ANGLIN, ) ) Complainants, ) ) v. ) Appeal Number 00-90500 ) CHERIE KOSHKO, ASSESSOR, ) VERNON COUNTY, MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the Vernon County Board of Equalization reducing the assessment made by the Assessor, AFFIRMED, the true value in money for the subject property for tax year 2000 to be $171,199, assessed value of $29,520.
Complainant appeared by Counsel, Kendall R. Vickers, Nevada, Missouri.
Respondent appeared pro se.
Case heard by Hearing Officer, Aimee Smashey.
Case decided by Chief Hearing Officer, W. B. Tichenor.
ISSUE
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 Vernon County Board of Equalization which reduced the valuation of the subject property. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $189,400, assessed value of $32,990 ($146,600/$27,850 - residential property; $42,800/$5,140 - agricultural property). The Board of Equalization adjusted the value of the subject property to $171,100, assessed value of $29,520 ($128,300/$24,380 - residential property, $42,800/$5,140 - agricultural property). A hearing was conducted on November 2, 2000, at the Vernon County Courthouse, Nevada, Missouri. Pursuant to Section 138.431.4, RSMo, this appeal has been assigned to Chief Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor, for rendering of a Decision and Order.
The Chief Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainants' Evidence
Complainants offered into evidence the following exhibits.
Exhibit A - Copy of Purchase Agreement for for subject Modular Home.
Exhibit B - Copy of Board of Equalization Decision Letter (attached to and part of Complaint for Review of Assessment).
Exhibit C - Photograph of stove in subject home.
Exhibit D - Photograph of subject home.
Complainant, Max Anglin, testified on behalf of Complainants. Exhibits A through D were received into evidence.
Respondent's Evidence
Respondent offered into evidence Exhibit 1, a summary evidence report on the subject property. Respondent also testified in her own behalf relative to the valuation of the subject property. Exhibit 1 was received into evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The subject property is identified by parcel number 213268 on the Board of Equalization Decision letter. The parcel number should be corrected to 213253, according to Respondent. Tr. 42, Line 23 - Tr. 43, Line 10. It is located at rural El Dorado Springs, Missouri. The property consists of 103.7 acres of land. It is improved by two residential structures, two sheds and two barns.
2. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 1999, to January 1, 2000.
3. Complainants presented no evidence to contest the valuation of the subject land, the sheds and barns or the 1930 residential structure. Complainants only contested the valuation of the 1999 residential structure. The residential structure consists of a 26 x 56 foot double wide modular home, with a 20 x 22 two car garage, a basement, deck along the back of the modular home and porch/open shed along one side of the garage. The only issue is the true value in money (fair market value) of the subject property, more specifically, the 1999 residential structure (house). The house is built and equipped with electrical fixtures; however, it is not connected to an electrical source, other than solar panels which provide a limited amount of electrical service. Electrical service is within approximately a half mile of the subject house. The house has a plumbing system and water is available through this system from a pond; however, there is no drinking water source which is attached to the house. The house has the duct work for a heating system, but the furnace was removed and heat is provided by a wood stove.
4. The valuation for the subject land and all other improvements, other than the house, are as determined by the Assessor. Said value being: $42,800 - land and improvements assessed as agricultural property for an assessed value of $5,140 and $45,240 - land and improvements assessed as residential property for an assessed value of $8,600.
5. Subtracting the uncontested values from the proposed value stated by the Complaint for Review of Assessment produces a proposed value for the house of $62,980 ($148,020 - $85,040 = $62,980). Complainants at no time testified as to an exact opinion of value for the subject house.
6. Complainants' evidence was not persuasive to establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2000, to be $62,980.
7. Respondent's appraised value on the subject house is $83,080. Respondent's evidence was substantial and persuasive to support this value.
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).
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).
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).
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, supra.
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 of 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 opinion 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. W.D. 1992).
DECISION
Complainants Fail to Prove Value
The evidence presented by Complainants failed to establish the value proposed in the Complaint for Review of Assessment. Complainant's witness at no time gave an exact opinion of value for the subject. From the entirety of the testimony, it appears that Mr. Anglin believes that the subject house (modular home, garage, porch, deck and basement) should be valued at approximately $65,000 to $66,000. The basis for Mr. Anglin's opinion of value rests on actual costs incurred in the purchase of the modular home and materials for other improvements. However, there is nothing to demonstrate that these actual costs are in fact reflective of the market value for the house. Complainants' evidence was insufficient to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board. Accordingly, the valuation by the Board must prevail.
Respondent's Evidence
The evidence presented by Respondent attacked the appraisal problem by considering three methodologies, cost approach, sales comparison and analysis of the purchase agreement. Respondent also provided the information utilized by the assessor under the mass appraisal costing system for Vernon County. The sales comparison analysis provided substantial and persuasive evidence as to value. The sales comparables were all modular homes, like the subject. The analysis of the purchase agreement based upon conversations with a representative of the seller also provided substantial support for the assessor's original valuation. The Marshall and Swift cost approach provided further evidence to establish value as determined by the assessor, as shown on the property record card.
Complainants' evidence did not meet the standard of substantial and persuasive to establish value. Respondent's evidence provided further and additional evidence which was substantial and persuasive to sustain the valuation made by the assessor.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization for Vernon County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2000 is set at $29,520.
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 Vernon 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 January 29, 2001.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
W. B. Tichenor, Chief Hearing Officer