LEN JUDD,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Numbers 02-89502 through 02-89505
	)
JAMES STRAHAN, ASSESSOR,	)
TANEY COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

Holding: The Board of Equalization's assessments on the subject unimproved parcels are supported by the market evidence on the record. There is insufficient market evidence on the record to know the appropriate value for the subject improved parcel given the condition problems. Accordingly, the Board's assessment must be affirmed.

SUMMARY

The subject properties in this consolidated appeal consist of four parcels each of which are combinations of two or more small subdivision lots. The subject lots are located in the Buck Creek Ranchette Subdivision, Protem, Missouri. The subdivision is approximately one mile, as the crow flies, from Bull Shoals Lake.

An evidentiary hearing was held on October 24, 2002, before the Tax Commission Hearing Officer, Aimee Smashey, at the Taney County Annex Building in Forsyth, Missouri. Complainant appeared on his own behalf. Respondent, James Strahan, appeared in his official capacity as Assessor for Taney County.

Complainant's Evidence

Complainant challenges the valuation on four parcels that he owns in the Buck Creek Ranchette subdivision in Protem, Missouri. He testified that the subdivision was plotted off in very small lots and opined that today, what demand there is for the lots, is for (1) assemblage purposes to build a residence, or (2) camping with no hookups. Tr. 8. The subdivision roads are gravel and many are overgrown. Tr. 19 - 20. He indicated that realtors have trouble selling in this subdivision and that you only occasionally see "for sale" signs posted in the subdivision. Tr. 15.

The first parcel, parcel number 24-1.0-11-003-005-031.000, consists of subdivision lots 4K and 4L. It measures 80' x 100' with a sloped topography and is undeveloped. Mr. Judd testified that there were no changes to the parcel during the 2001 calendar year. He also indicated that, given its size, the parcel is not suitable as a building site due to septic requirements and topography. He testified that he purchased the parcel after oral negotiations with the seller for $700 on June 11, 2001.

The second parcel, parcel number 24-1.0-11-003-001-014.000, consists of subdivision lots 25B, 25C, 25D, 25E, 25L, 25M, 25N, 25O, and 25P. It is irregular in shape. Mr. Judd testified that he started purchasing these lots in 2000 to try to assemble enough area to make a building site. He indicated that he purchased lots 25N, 25O, and 25P for $1,000; lots 25L and 25M for $800; lots 25B, 25C and two other lots contiguous to his residence for $800 (or $200/lot); and lots 25D and 25E for $1,200. He indicated that since 25D and 25E were purchased after he had already assembled the rest, he had to pay more for them. The total price paid for each lot assembled for this parcel was $3,400 allowing $200 per lot for lots 25B and 25C.

The third parcel, parcel number 24-1.0-11-003-003-013.000, consists of subdivision lots 14S and 14T. The parcel measures 110' by 80' and has a rocky and steep topography. He testified that he contacted the seller after seeing a for sale sign posted. He negotiated a sales price of $800 and purchased the property on March 24, 2002.

The fourth parcel, parcel number 24-1.0-11-003-004-013.000, consists of subdivision lots 13A-H, 14A-C, and 14L-P. It is irregular in shape and is improved with various structures including a residential structure build over a mobile home, a barn, a garage, a small well house, and a small wash house. Mr. Judd obtained this property by inquiring of local banks whether they had any repossessed properties for which they were seeking bids. He reviewed the properties and placed a bid on the subject property which at that time included the referenced structures and all lots except 14L and 14M. His bid of $25,000 was accepted, he purchased the property in December of 2000. Having resided at the property since that time, he has developed the opinion that he overpaid for the property due to the poor quality of construction and condition of the structures. He testified that the house was constructed cheaply and has a poor foundation made of blocks, rock, and four by fours. Tr. 26. The barn was constructed solely of rafters, studding, and metal for the exterior and the roof is very low. The garage was constructed solely of rafters, studding, and vinyl siding which is attached to the studding -- which, as a result, waves in and out between the studding. Mr. Judd testified that he later purchased the additional two lots for $400. In his opinion, this property is worth less than the $25,400 that he paid for it given the poor quality of the improvements.

Mr. Judd testified that his sister bought an improved parcel to the north of the parcel where he lives in October of 2001 which included 14 subdivision lots improved with a mobile home that has been modified and affixed to the parcel and a barn. She purchased the property for $18,000 and later added a square of 4 more subdivision lots to the west for a purchase price of $2,000. Mr. Judd testified that he and his wife both believe that his sister's property is a better, more valuable, property than their residence and she only paid a total of $20,000 in October of 2001.

Mr. Judd offered various other assessment records and photos on properties in the subject subdivision and nearby. Of these properties, he indicated that two were improved with a home built over a camper trailer and had sold recently. The first included six subdivision lots, a 480 square foot residence, and a well which sold for approximately $4,000. The second included 4 subdivision lots and a 272 square foot residence which sold for approximately $5,000. Mr. Judd obtained the sales information from the buyer or seller. Tr. 36 - 37.

On cross examination, Mr. Judd confirmed that he had previously owned unimproved subdivision lots 27M - P. He had cleared out the brush and undergrowth from these lots and had worked the ground up with a disc. He was approached about selling these lots and agreed to sell them for $800 each in two separate transactions during 2001.

Respondent's Evidence

Mr. Strahan did not offer any evidence but put forward a closing argument prior to the conclusion of the hearing.

ISSUE

Given the operation of the two-year assessment cycle, the question that must be answered from the evidence submitted is: What was the market value of the subject parcels based upon market conditions as of January 1, 2001?

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2. Recent sales of unimproved subdivision lots range from $200 to $800. The lots which have access to a good road sold for $200, $350, and $600. The $200 and $600 sales were purchased by a contiguous land owner. The lots which appear to only have access to an overgrown gravel road or grass roadbed sold for $200, $334, $400, $400, $800, and $800. The $200 sale, one of the $400 sales and the latter of the $800 sales were sold to a contiguous land owner. It does not appear from the sales addressed at hearing that road access or purchase by a contiguous land owner make a significant difference in the market values demanded for these lots.

3. The improvements on parcel no. 24-1.0-11-003-004-013.000 are of poor quality and have significant physical depreciation. There is insufficient evidence on the record to establish the market value of such improvements.

4. There was no significant construction or improvements to parcel no. 24-1.0-11-003-004-013.000 during the 2001 calendar year.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

Complainant has the burden of presenting substantial and persuasive evidence that his proposed values are indicative of the market value of the subject properties based upon their improved state on January 1, 2002, using upon market conditions as of January 1, 2001, in order to have those values accepted. 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).

The purpose of this hearing is to determine the fair market value of the subject property as of January 1, 1999. 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 would be open market sales activity of the subject parcels or comparable parcels. The only sales evidence introduced into the record was the following: