ROSS & THELMA EATON,	)
	)
Complainants,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 03-62507
	)
DON DAVIS, ASSESSOR,	)
JASPER COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

Decision of the Jasper County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor, AFFIRMED, true value in money for the subject property for tax years 2003 and 2004 set at $113,560, assessed value of $21,580.

Complainants appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared by Counsel, Dean Dankelson, Prosecuting Attorney.

Case heard by Hearing Officer Aimee L. Smashey.

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.

Complainants appeal the decision of the Jasper County Board of Equalization which sustained the valuation of the subject property. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $119,370 (assessed value of $22,680, as residential property). After an informal hearing, the value was reduced by the Assessor to $113,560, assessed value of $21,580. Complainants proposed a value of $94,900 (assessed value of $18,030). A hearing was conducted on October 28, 2003, at the Jasper County Courthouse, Carthage, Missouri.

Pursuant to Section 138.431.4, RSMo, this appeal has been transferred to Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor, for rendering of a decision. The decision reached by Hearing Officer Tichenor has been reviewed by Hearing Officer Smashey and she concurs in the Decision and Order entered herein.

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

Complainants both testified on the issue of the fair market value of the subject property. Exhibit A was received into evidence on behalf of Complainants. Exhibit A consists of five photographs a commercial junk yard which is located in the subject=s neighborhood.

Respondent placed into evidence the testimony of Ms. Karen Wright. Ms. Wright testified as to the valuation of the subject property. Appraisal documents prepared by Ms. Wright were received into evidence as Exhibit 1. Exhibit C consisting of plat maps of the subject=s general neighborhood was also received into evidence.

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

2. The subject property is located at 5713 S. Garrison Ave., Carthage, Missouri. The property is identified by map parcel number 21200440001001.001. The property consists of a 1.12 acre lot improved by a one-family residence, approximately 17 years of age, in average condition and of average quality of construction. The house contains a total of 1,171 square feet of living area.

3. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2003, to the date of hearing, therefore, the valuation for 2003 will be the valuation for 2004 in the absence of any new construction and improvement made during November or December, 2003.

4. Complainants= evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2003, to be $94,900, as proposed.

5. The true value in money of the subject property as of January 1, 2003, was $113,560, assessed value of $21,580.

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.

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).

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 investigate appeals filed with the Commission, the Hearing Officer has the duty to inquire of the owner of the property or of any other party to the appeal regarding any matter or issue relevant to the valuation, subclassification or assessment of the property. The Hearing Officer=s decision regarding the assessment or valuation of the property may be based solely upon its inquiry and any evidence presented by the parties, or based solely upon evidence presented by the parties. Section 138.430.2, RSMo.

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).

The Hearing Officer as the trier of fact may consider the testimony of an 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).

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, 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).

Complainants failed to meet their burden of proof to come forth with substantial and persuasive evidence that the fair market value of the subject property on January 1, 2003, was $94,900. No evidence was offered from which it can be concluded that $94,900 would have been the amount agreed to between a willing buyer and seller in an open market transaction for the sale and purchase of the subject. Complainants= sole point of contention relates to the existence of a junk yard some seven-tenths of a mile from the subject. The junk yard cannot be seen from the Complainants= home.

The possible negative factor of the existence of the junk yard was a matter which Complainants were required to prove in order to be successful in their appeal. It is not enough to simply prove the existence of the junk yard. That is really not in dispute. It is a fact there is a junk yard down the road from the subject property. However, there has to be evidence which demonstrates that the subject property has somehow been devalued due to the existence of this factor.

No such evidence exists in this record. In point of fact, no evidence exists from which the Hearing Officer can establish that the fair market value proffered by Mr. and Mrs. Eaton represents what their home would buy and sell for. Their opinion of value was not demonstrated to have been based on proper elements or a proper foundation. Therefore, the opinion has no probative value on the issue of overvaluation.

In the absence of Complainants meeting their burden of proof, the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization stands and is controlling in this case. The fair market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2003, was $113,560, as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board.

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

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2003 and 2004 is set at $21,580.

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 Jasper 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