LEO & MARJORIE STONEBRAKER,	)
	)
Complainants,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 03-32009
	)
CATHY RINEHART, ASSESSOR,	)
CLAY COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

A hearing was conducted on October 21, 2003, before Hearing Officer Luann Johnson, at the Clay County Administration Building, Courthouse Square, Liberty, Missouri. Complainant appeared pro se. Respondent appeared by counsel, Mark Murphy.

The property under appeal is a single-family residence. Respondent originally appraised the property at a market value of $85,400 (assessed value $16,570). The Board of Equalization reduced value to $72,600 (assessed value $13,790). Complainant asserts a value of $41,000 (assessed value $7,790). At hearing Respondent presented an appraisal report demonstrating a value under the market approach of $80,000. Complainant presented pictures of damage and estimates for repairs, but presented no appraisal testimony.

Complainant introduced the following exhibits:

Exhibit 1 - An estimate of $6,856 to repair the drainage problems under the house;

Exhibit 2 - An estimate of $485 to replace gutters and downspouts;

Exhibit 3 - An estimate of $769 to replace gutters and downspouts;

Exhibit 4 - An estimate of $2,850 to repair the drainage problems under the house;

Exhibit 5 through Exhibit 16 - pictures of drainage problems under the house and damage to siding and paint.

Respondent introduced an appraisal report which was marked Exhibit A.

The issue in this case is the true value in money of Complainants= property on January 1, 2003, and January 1, 2004.

HOLDING

The value determined by the Board of Equalization is SET ASIDE. The correct value for the subject property is $80,000 (assessed value $15,200).

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

2. The subject of this appeal is a 1,152 square foot ranch-style home on a 2.65 acre site. The home is 43 years old and in fair condition. It has three bedrooms, one bath and a one- car attached garage. The property is also improved with a 512 square foot outbuilding in fair condition. The property is identified as parcel number 08-902-00-01-002.00, more commonly known as 15911 Salem Road, Excelsior Springs, Clay County, Missouri.

3. Complainants= appeal hinges on a claim of diminished value because the home sits on an underground spring which has allowed water to enter the crawl space and damage the foundation and supporting timbers. Estimates for repair of the foundation and supporting timbers range from $2,850 to $6,856. Costs to repair the guttering range from $485 to $769.

4. Sales of similar homes in the area, with a $5,000 site adjustment for repairs to gutters, foundation and supporting timbers, indicate a value for the subject property of $69,411; $86,500; and $72,600. The most similar comparable sale, requiring the fewest number of adjustments, indicates a value for the subject property of $86,500. Respondent is proposing a value of $80,000.

5. The most likely price the subject property would sell for on the tax day was $80,000.

6. No evidence was presented which suggested that any new construction or property improvements occurred after January 1, 2003. Therefore, the value established for 2003 shall also be the value for tax year 2004.

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 purchased by one desiring 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 which a specified interest in real property is likely to bring under the following conditions:

1. Consummation of a sale occurs as of a specified date;

2. An open and competitive market exists for the property interest appraised;

3. The buyer and seller are each acting prudently and knowledgeably;

4. The price is not affected by undue stimulus;

5. The buyer and seller are typically motivated;

6. Both parties are acting in what they consider their best interest;

7. Marketing efforts were adequate and a reasonable time was allowed for exposure to the open market;

8. Payment was made in cash in U.S. dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and

9. 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.

In order to prevail, Complainants must present an opinion of market value and then must present 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. 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, 27 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).

An owner may testify as to the value of his property but that testimony will only be given weight if it is based upon proper elements or a proper foundation. State Highway Commission v. Johnson, 563 S.W.2d 110, 103 (Mo. App. 1978); Shelby County R-4 School District v. Hermann, 392 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Mo. 1965). The market value for the property on January 1, 2003, is the only acceptable foundation for an opinion of value in this case. In Missouri the only recognized methodologies for calculating true value in money are (1) the sales comparison approach; (2) the cost approach; and (3) the income approach.

Complainants established that their home suffered from water damage because of its location over an underground stream. However, they did not establish that the water damage reduced the market value of the home to $41,000. Their estimates only demonstrated damage between $3,335 and $7,625.

Respondent=s appraiser presented three recent sales of properties near Complainants= home which were of similar age, style and size. Respondent=s appraiser allowed a $5,000 adjustment to the site of all comparable sales to reflect the problems created by the underground stream. After adjustments, these properties suggested values for Complainant=s property of $69,411, $72,600 and $86,500. The property most similar to the subject property indicated the highest value. The property requiring the most adjustments - and being the least similar to the subject property - indicated the lowest value and required a $30,700 adjustment to make it similar to the subject property.

Respondent=s appraiser considered the sale indicating a value of $72,600 and the sale indicating a value of $86,500, to reach her opinion of value of $80,000 for the subject property.

Respondent=s adjustments are within the range of the cost to cure the subject property=s drainage problems and her conclusion of value is supported by market evidence.

The assessed valuation for the subject property for tax year 2003, as determined by the Board of Equalization, is SET ASIDE. The Clerk is hereby ordered to put a new assessed value of $15,200 on the property for tax years 2003 and 2004.

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. Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the appeal is based will result in summary denial.

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 Clay 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 December 19, 2003.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Luann Johnson

Hearing Officer