MIKE HUGHES	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 01-52002
	)
SHAWN ORDWAY, ASSESSOR,	)
COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

HOLDING

Decision of the Cole 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 year 2001 to be $150,000, assessed value of $28,500 and for tax year 2002 to be $174,900, assessed value of $33,230.

Complainant appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared, in person and by Counsel, William Tackett, 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 and January 1, 2002.

SUMMARY

Complainant appeals the decision of the Cole County Board of Equalization which sustained the valuation of the subject property. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $174,900 (assessed value of $33,230, as residential property). Complainant proposed a value of $150,000 (assessed value of $28,500). A hearing was conducted on November 1, 2001, at the Cole County Courthouse Annex, Jefferson City, 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. He testified that he had purchased the subject lot in February, 1999, for $23,000. He further testified that he had a house constructed on the subject lot which was completed by July 1, 2000. The total cost for the lot and the house as it existed on January 1, 2001, was $143,000. On January 1, 2001, the basement of the house was not completed. The wiring and plumbing were stubbed in and the sheetrock was hung on the walls. The walls were not mudded or painted. Since January 1, 2001, the basement has been finished out with a family room, office, and a bathroom. Complainant's opinion of value for the subject property as it existed on January 1, 2001, was $150,000 due to the unfinished condition of the basement.

Respondent's Evidence

Ms. Dixie Weaver, chief appraiser for Respondent, testified on behalf of Respondent. Ms. Weaver testified that Complainant's house was put on for January 1, 2001, at full value as if it had a finished basement, because of the policy of Respondent's office that if the sheetrock has been hung the house is put on for full value for that tax year.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2. The subject property consists of the lot and improvements at 3719 Viola, Jefferson City, Missouri, parcel number 48142442.

3. There was evidence of the basement of the subject house being completed during the calendar year 2001.

3.     The subject house was not in a completed condition as of January 1, 2001.

4. Complainant's evidence was persuasive to establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2001, to be $150,000, as proposed.

5. The true value in money of the subject property, with the house in an unfinished condition on January 1, 2001, is $150,000 as proposed by Complainant. The true value in money of the subject property, with the house in a finished condition on January 1, 2002, is $174,900.

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 a 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).

Assessed Value in Even-Number Year

Missouri operates on a two-year assessment cycle. The value of property in the odd- numbered year shall remain as the value for the even-numbered year unless there is new construction and improvement to the property during the odd-numbered year. Section 137.115, RSMo.

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, 2001 and 2002. 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

The only real issue presented in this appeal is whether the subject property had a market value as of January 1, 2001, with an unfinished basement, as it would with a finished basement. The fact that the basement of the subject house was in an unfinished condition on January 1, 2001, would certainly be a relevant factor as to how much a prospective buyer would have paid for the subject property. The market would not pay the same for a house with an unfinished basement (with only sheetrock hung and wiring and plumbing stubbed in) as it would for a finished basement with painted sheetrock and finished walls, carpeted floors and other finish for the family room, office and bathroom.

The only evidence of value present as to the subject property in its unfinished condition was that of the owner, based upon the work that was not completed in the basement on January 1, 2001. The testimony of Ms. Weaver related to valuing the unfinished house as if it were finished, accordingly, that testimony does not have probative value as to the market value of the property in its unfinished condition on January 1, 2001. The owner's opinion of value, in this instance, is sufficient to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board for tax year 2001 and to reach the level of substantial and persuasive to establish the value of the unfinished subject property to be $150,000 on January 1, 2001.

The home was completed during 2001. Pursuant to Section 137.115, the assessment for 2002 will have to reflect the fact that the subject property on January 1, 2002, is in a completed condition. The valuation placed on the property by the Respondent of $174,900 was for a finished house on the subject lot. Complainant presented no evidence as to value of the subject property with a finished house. Accordingly, the only evidence as to the value of the subject property in its finished condition was that reflected in the value placed on the property by the assessor and sustained by the Board. The true value in money for the subject property for tax year 2002 is $174,900.

ORDER

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

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2001 is set at $28,500.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2002 is set at $33,230.

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 Cole 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