BILLY ROUSE,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 03-67501
	)
LAURA POPE, ASSESSOR,	)
MCDONALD COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

Valuation of the subject property at a fair market value of $90,550, assessed value of $15,920 by the Assessor, AFFIRMED.

Case submitted on documents filed.

Case decided by Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.

The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2003.

Complainant appeals the valuation of the subject property by the Assessor. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $90,550 (assessed value of $15,920, as residential and agricultural property). Complainant proposed a value of $85,000 (assessed value of $15,000) on his Complaint for Review of Assessment. Parties agreed to waive an evidentiary hearing and submit the appeal on documents filed.

The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.

The following documents are received into evidence on behalf of Complainant, as exhibits:

Exhibit A    Copy of Notice of Change in Assessed Value and copy of Property Record Card on subject. These documents were filed with the Complaint for Review of Assessment.

Exhibit B    Letter from Complainant (received 11/24/03) with a copy of the 1995 and 1997 tax bills, and 13 photographs showing a junk yard near the subject property, other neighborhood properties, and interior damage to subject house.

Exhibit C    Letter from Complainant (received 12/12/03), consenting to a decision based upon evidence previously sent to the Commission.

The following documents are received into evidence on behalf of Complainant, as an exhibit:

Exhibit 1    Letter from Assessor and copy of Property Record Card on subject, with valuation as of 6/13/03 of $95,130, assessed value of $16,470 and new valuation as of 8/5/03 of $90,550, assessed value of $15,920.

1. The subject property is located 2002 Route MM, Southwest City, Missouri. It is identified by parcel number 170-30000000006.00. The property consists of 39.67 acres improved by a residence and two barns.

2. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2003, to December 15, 2003, when Respondent=s exhibit was received. In the absence of new construction and improvement during December, 2003, the value for 2003 will be the value for 2004.

3. Complainant=s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2003, to be $85,000.

4. The true value in money for the subject property as of January 1, 2003, was $90,550 as set by the Assessor on August 5, 2003.

The Commission is to 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 correcting any assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary, or capricious. Section 138.431.4, RSMo.

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).

Market value is the most probable price in terms of money which a property should bring in competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeable and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.

Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specific 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 and well advised, and each acting in what they consider their own best interests.

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

4. Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.

5. Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.

6. The price represents a normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special financing amounts and/or terms, services, fees, costs, or credits incurred in the transaction.

Real Estate Appraisal Terminology, Society of Real Estate Appraisers, Revised Edition, 1984; See also, Real Estate Valuation in Litigation, J. D. Eaton, M.A.I., American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 1982, pp. 4-5; Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration, International Association of Assessing Officers, 1990, pp. 79-80; Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, Glossary.

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, 2003. 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). See also, Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Daly v. P. D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); Reeves v. Snider, 115 S.W.3d 375 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003).

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).

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).

Complainant failed to meet his burden of proof. An owner=s opinion of fair market value standing alone without substantial and persuasive evidence to support it has no probative value. Pictures and information as to the existence of a junk yard and other detracting factors in the neighborhood and internal water damage to the subject house, simply provides no information upon which it can be concluded that a willing buyer and seller would have agreed to a purchase price of $85,000 on January 1, 2003, for the property. There is simply no basis founded upon a recognized approach to valuing real property, upon which the Hearing Officer can find the fair market value of the subject property to be $85,000. Accordingly, the value set by the Assessor in August, 2003 of $90,550 is determined to be the true value in money as of January 1, 2003.

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2003 and 2004 is set at $15,920.

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 McDonald 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 23, 2003.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

W. B. Tichenor

Hearing Officer