RALPH AND GAIL DAVIS,	)
	)
Complainants,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number  00-32501
	)
JEAN TWITTY, ASSESSOR,	)
GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

Holding: The market evidence supports a value of $158,900 for the subject property for the 2000 tax year. The assessment is affirmed.

SUMMARY

The subject property in this appeal consists of a 1.13 acre lot improved with a ranch style single family residence. The residence was built in 1999 and contains approximately 1,962 square feet of living area. The property includes a 1,248 square foot outbuilding. The subject parcel is identified by parcel locator number 88-12-25-400-060. It is located at 5646 E. Bennet Street, Springfield, Missouri. Respondent originally appraised the parcel at a market value of $158,900 (assessment of $30,200). The Board of Equalization affirmed the original valuation. Complainants appeal the assessment on the grounds of overvaluation and proposes a market value of $148,500. Respondent presented appraisal evidence in support of a value of $165,000.

An evidentiary hearing was conducted on October 2, 2000, at the Greene County Courthouse, Springfield, Missouri, before Hearing Officer Aimee Smashey.

ISSUE

The issue in this appeal is true value in money of the subject property as of January 1, 1999.

Complainants' Evidence

Complainant, Mrs. Gail Davis, offered testimony regarding the value of the subject property. Mrs. Davis testified that she and her husband purchased the subject lot about 5 years ago and built a home on the lot that was completed around September 14, of 1999. The property contains an outbuilding which was built in 1998 because they were building the home themselves and needed a place to store their materials. Mrs. Davis testified that, in her opinion, the house and lot exclusive of the outbuilding would only sell for $138,000 and that the outbuilding does not add much value to the property in the marketplace. She finally concluded that the property as a whole would sell for $148,500 at a maximum in the January 1, 1999, market. Mrs. Davis testified that she is a newly licensed realtor and has some knowledge of residential property valuation from her training as a realtor.

Mrs. Davis offered an appraisal of the subject property prepared by Mr. Rich Caraway, SRA. Mr. Caraway was not present at the hearing to authenticate the appraisal or to be subject to Respondent's potential cross-examination about the appraisal. Accordingly, upon Respondent's objections on these grounds, the appraisal report was excluded from evidence. (See Endnote 1).

Mrs. Davis also offered Complainants' Exhibit A, B, and C. Exhibit A consists of Multi-List Service data sheets and photographs of 7 homes in the subject neighborhood that have outbuildings that Mrs. Davis believes are comparable to the subject outbuilding.

Summary of Data from Complainants' Exhibit A

* The photographs following the MLS record on 1522 S. Briar Ave. depict a ranch house which conflicts with the data indicating it to be a two-story house. The photographs following the MLS record on 5652 E. Catalpa St. depict a two-story house which conflicts with the data indicating it to be a ranch house.

Exhibit B consists of the MLS data sheets of the six properties in the subject subdivision that were assessed in 1999 at a higher value than the subject property. Mrs. Davis testified that most of them have an outbuilding or a pool and poolhouse.

Exhibit C consists of the MLS data sheets of the thirty-eight (38) houses in the subject subdivision that have a larger amount of living area and were assessed in 1999 at a lower value than the subject property. Mrs. Davis opines that more than half of these properties have an outbuilding.

Respondent's Evidence

Respondent offered the appraisal report and testimony of Ms. Judith Crane. In performing her appraisal, Ms. Crane went and performed an exterior inspection of the subject property. She searched the market for sales that were comparable to the subject property. She performed both a cost approach and a sales comparison approach to value.

In her cost approach, Ms. Crane utilized the Cole, Layer, and Trumble costing system to calculate the replacement cost new for the house, porches and attached garage at $122,700. She deducted 2% for depreciation for an indicated value of $120,200. She calculated the depreciated value of the outbuilding and metal carport to be $23,300 and the site value to be $15,400. Adding together the depreciated values of all the improvements and the site value yields an indicated value of $158,900 under the cost approach.

In her sales comparison approach, Ms. Crane selected three comparable properties. Comparable 1 is located in the southeast part of Springfield in a comparable subdivision with diversity in the ages and styles of the houses. Comparable 2 is located on the same street as the subject. Comparable 3 is located nearby to the west of the subject property just outside the city limits. She adjusted the comparable sales prices to reflect the market reaction to differences between the comparables and the subject property.

Based upon the sales evidence and her conclusion that comparable sale number 1 is the most comparable to the subject property, Ms. Crane concluded that the market value of the subject property was $165,000.

Ruling on Admissibility of Complainants' Exhibits A, B, and C

Complainants' offered Exhibits A, B, and C into evidence. Respondent objected on the grounds of lack of foundation and hearsay. The objections were taken under advisement to be ruled on in the decision. The documents were identified as tax information from the Ozark Chapter of the Missouri Board of Realtors Multi-List Service. They are an on-line market reports and commercial publications available to Board of Realtors members. This Hearing Officer recognizes that these database documents, like any other market report and/or commercial publication, may contain errors. The exhibits are received into evidence for consideration in this decision.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2. The market data shows a range of value from $69.88 per square foot to $87.29 per square foot for comparable ranch homes without an outbuilding. As is often the norm, the smaller comparable sold for more on a square foot basis than the larger comparable.

3. A very comparable property with an outbuilding sold for $83.00 per square foot.

4. The market evidence supports a market value of $158,900 ($80.98 per square foot) for the 2000 tax year.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Complainants have the burden of presenting substantial and persuasive evidence that their proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject property as completed on January 1, 2000, based upon market conditions as of January 1, 1999, in order to have that value accepted. Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, at 897.

2. 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).

3. 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

The question that must be answered from the evidence submitted is: What was the market value of the subject property as completed on January 1, 2000, based upon market conditions as of January 1, 1999? More specifically, Complainants contest that the outbuilding adds any significant value to the parcel as a whole. Market value is defined as "...[t]he most probable price which a property would bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:

1. buyer and seller are typically motivated;

2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests;

3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;

4. payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and

5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale."

Federal Register, vol. 55, no. 163, August 22, 1990, pages 34228 and 34229; also quoted in the Definitions section of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, 1996 ed.

Accordingly, the best evidence is open market sales activity of the subject parcel or comparable parcels. Alternatively, the cost approach to value can be a good value indicator on new construction.

In this case, the most compelling evidence would be to review sales of comparable ranch homes with outbuildings that are located in the subject subdivision. Unfortunately, there is no such data in the record. Respondent's appraisal presented one ranch sale in the subject subdivision. It sold for $87.29 per square foot, had no outbuilding and was inferior in size, age, and quality of construction. The appraisal also presented the comparable sale of a ranch home in a nearby subdivision. It sold for $69.88 per square foot, had no outbuilding, and appears to be inferior in size of site (See Endnote 2) and age while superior in size of living area and having a fireplace. From this evidence, we have a range of value from $69.88 per square foot to $87.29 per square foot for comparable ranch homes without an outbuilding. As is often the norm, the smaller comparable sold for more on a square foot basis than the larger comparable. Respondent's appraisal also included a comparable sale of a ranch property with an outbuilding located in a comparable subdivision in southeast Springfield. It sold for $83.00 per square foot and is very comparable in size, area, and age to the subject property. While in a comparable subdivision in terms of diversity of styles and ages of the homes, the appraiser judged that the location was somewhat superior to the subject property's location. From this evidence, this Hearing Officer is persuaded that there is market support for a value in the range of $77 - $80 per square foot without the outbuilding and $80 - $82 per square foot with the added amenity of an outbuilding. Accordingly, an assessment based on $80.98 per square foot is supported by the evidence. This Hearing Officer is not persuaded that there is sufficient evidence to merit an increase in value.

Complainants submitted MLS assessment data in order to show the diversity of assessment within the subdivision. They argued that this established a lack of uniformity. The evidence in the record shows that the subject subdivision is very diverse in terms of the ages and styles of the homes within it. The simple showing of diversity of assessment within a diverse subdivision does not establish a lack of assessment uniformity. Assessments are based upon market value. Similarly, a lack of uniformity is proven by establishing market values of properties and then showing that they are assessed at significantly different percentages of their actual market values. The legal elements that must be proven in a uniformity case are:

1. The average level of assessment for residential property in Greene County in 2000. This is done by (a) independently determining the market value of a representative sample of residential properties in Greene County; (b) determining the assessed value placed on that property by the assessor's office for the relevant year; (c) dividing the assessed value by the market value to determine the level of assessment of each property in the sample; and (d) determining the mean and the median of the results.

2. The level of assessment for the subject property in 2000. This is done by independently determining the market value of the subject property and dividing the market value into the assessed value of the property as determined by the assessor's office (assessed value = assessor's opinion of market value x 19%).

3. That the disparity between (1) and (2) is grossly excessive. Savage v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 722 S.W.2d 72, 79 (Mo. banc 1986).

This Hearing Officer is not persuaded that Complainants established a lack of assessment uniformity in Greene County for the 2000 tax year.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property for the 2000 tax year is affirmed at $30,200.

A party may file with the Commission an application for review of a hearing officer decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of such decision. The application shall contain specific detailed grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.

If an application for review of a hearing officer 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 Greene 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 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

Aimee Smashey

Hearing Officer

End Notes

1.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the Hearing Officer allowed Complainants three business days to contact their appraiser and communicate with the Hearing Officer whether they wished to request that the hearing be continued to allow the testimoy and cross-examination of their appraiser.  Mrs. Davis communicated to the Hearing Officer during that time that she did not think she would be making such a request.

2.  Respondent's appraiser made a negative adjustment for the site noting a size of 81 x 156 which equates to approximately 1/3 of an acre compared to the subject's 1.13 acre size.  This smaller size would seem to be inferior to the subject's size suggesting that a positive adjustment should have been made.