CHARLES H. BYBEE,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 03-32506
	)
SCOTT SHIPMAN, ASSESSOR,	)
ST. CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

Decision of the St. Charles 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 $90,000 assessed value of $17,100.

Complainant appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared by Counsel, Charissa Mayes, Assistant County Counselor.

Case heard and 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 decision of the St. Charles County Board of Equalization which reduced the valuation of the subject property. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $99,200 (assessed value of $18,850, as residential property). The Board reduced the value to $90,000 (assessed value $17,100 Complainant proposed a value of $61,000 (assessed value of $11,590). A hearing was conducted on January 13, 2004, at the St. Charles County Administration Building, St. Charles, Missouri.

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

Complainant testified in his own behalf. He offered his opinion of value for the subject property of $61,000 based on an appraisal on the subject property performed in 1992. A copy of two pages of the 1992 appraisal was offered into evidence as Exhibit A. Objection was made to Exhibit A based on relevancy and lack of foundation. Objection was sustained. Exhibit A was excluded from evidence. Exhibit B a photograph of the property next door to the subject was received into evidence.

Respondent placed into evidence the testimony of Mr. Steven D. Riney, appraiser for St. Charles County. The appraiser testified as to his appraisal of the subject property. The Appraisal Report, Exhibit 1, of Mr. Riney was received into evidence. Mr. Riney arrived at an opinion of value for the subject property of $105,000 based upon a sales comparison approach to value. In performing his sales comparison analysis, the appraiser relied upon the sales of five sale properties which he deemed to be comparable to the subject property. Exhibit 1 also contained a cost approach to value which concluded on a fair market value of $91,360, based upon a Marshall and Swift costing analysis. Exhibit 2, the trend factor analysis for the subject neighborhood, was also received into evidence.

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

2. The subject property is located at 318 Houston St., St. Charles, Missouri. It is identified by map number 6-009A-4499-04-8 and parcel number 026870A000. The property consists of .16 of an acre lot which is improved by a one and a half story frame house with a continuous wall concrete foundation, asphalt shingles, gabled roof, carpet and vinyl flooring. The house contains 1,317 square feet of living area. It has six rooms, two bedrooms and two bathrooms. There is unfinished basement area and a one-car detached garage. The house was built in 1900.

3. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2003, to January 1, 2004. Therefore, the fair market value for tax year 2003 will also apply to tax year 2004.

4. Complainant=s 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 $61,000.

5. The properties relied upon by Respondent=s appraiser in performing his appraisal were comparable to the subject property for the purpose of making a determination of value of the subject property. The properties were located within 4 to 7 blocks of the subject. Each sale property sold at a time relevant to the tax date of January 1, 2003. The sale properties were all improved by single family homes. The sale properties were similar to the subject in location, site size, view, age, quality of construction, condition, living area, number of rooms, bedroom and bathroom count, and other amenities.

6. The comparables were described as follows:

Comparable 1 ( 605 Monroe St. - 7 blocks southeast of the subject) sold in December 2002 for $100,000. This property consists of a lot of a size similar to the subject improved by a frame one and a half story house, with 1,260 square feet of living area built in 1926. The house has six rooms, three bedrooms and one bathroom, with an unfinished basement. There is no garage or carport.

Comparable 2 (732 N. Kingshighway - 5 block northeast of the subject ) sold in September 2002 for $82,000. This property consists of a lot of a size similar to the subject improved by a frame one and a half story house, with 1,260 square feet of living area built in 1909. The house has six rooms, two bedrooms and two bathrooms, with an unfinished basement. There is no garage or carport.

Comparable 3 (315 N. 6th St. - 5 blocks southeast of the subject) sold in June 2002 for $125,000. This property consists of a lot of a size similar to the subject improved by a brick and frame one and a half story house, with 1,440 square feet of living area built in 1868. The house has five rooms, two bedrooms and one bathroom, with an unfinished basement. There is no garage or carport.

Comparable 4 (716 Washington St. - 4 blocks southeast of the subject) sold in May 2002 for $117,000. This property consists of a lot of a size similar to the subject improved by a frame one and a half story house, with 1,248 square feet of living area built in 1910. The house has five rooms, three bedrooms and one and a half bathrooms, with an unfinished basement. There is no garage or carport.

Comparable 5 (709 Adams St. - 4 blocks southeast of the subject) sold in February 2002 for $129,000. This property consists of a lot of a size similar to the subject improved by a frame one and a half story house, with 1,3,90 square feet of living area built in 1900. The house has six rooms, three bedrooms and one bathroom, with an unfinished basement. There is a one car detached garage and a two-car detached carport.

7. The appraiser made various adjustments to the comparable properties for differences which existed between the subject and each comparable. The adjustments were appropriate to account for the various difference between the subject and the sale properties.

8. The net adjustments for Comparable 1 amounted to -$9,000 or 7.1% of the sales price. The net adjustments for Comparable 2 amounted to +$12,810 or 15.6% of the sales price. The net adjustments for Comparable 3 amounted to -$8,700 or 6.9% of the sales price. The net adjustments for Comparable 4 amounted to -$6,660 or 5.7% of the sales price. The net adjustments for Comparable 5 amounted to -$23,230 or 18% of the sales price.

9. The adjusted sales prices for the comparables calculated to $117,000, $94,810, $116,300, $110,340 and $105,770, respectively. The appraiser concluded on a $105,000 value which calculated to a value per square foot of $79.73 compared with the sales prices per square foot of living area for the comparables of $100.00, $78.92, $86.81, $93.75 and $92.81.

10. The indicated value of the subject property under the cost approach was $91,360. Exhibit 1, pp. 13-16.

11. Respondent=s appraisal was offered for the purpose of sustaining the value of $90,000 and not to advocate an increase in value to $105,000.

12. Respondent=s evidence did not have to meet the standard of clear and convincing to sustain the original value set by the Assessor. Respondent=s evidence met the standard of substantial and persuasive to affirm the value set by the Board for the subject, as of January 1, 2003, at $90,000.

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).

There is no presumption that the assessor=s valuation is correct. Section 138.431.3, 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; Exhibit 1, p. 4.

Duty to Investigate

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 expert 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).

If specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert on that subject, by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto.

The facts or data upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing and must be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject and must be otherwise reliable, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. Section 490.065, RSMo; Courtroom Handbook on Missouri Evidence, Wm. A. Schroeder, Sections 702-505, pp. 325-350; Wulfing v. Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 133 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992).

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).

In any case in St. Charles County where the assessor presents evidence which indicates a valuation higher than the value finally determined by the assessor or the value determined by the board of equalization, whichever is higher, for that assessment period, such evidence will only be received for the purpose of sustaining the assessor=s or board=s valuation, and not for increasing the valuation of the property under appeal. Section 138.060, RSMo; 12 CSR 30-3.075.

Complainant=s opinion of value of $61,000 was based on an appraisal of the subject property performed some eleven years prior to tax date. The exhibit evidence (Exhibit A) of such an appraisal was excluded from evidence. An eleven year old appraisal has no probative value in an appeal before the Commission. Complainant=s opinion of value had no evidence to provide it any support. The opinion of value based on an outdated appraisal was not founded upon either the property elements to establish fair market value for January 2003 or upon a foundation which would support Complainant=s opinion of value. No probative weight could be given the owner=s opinion of value. An owner=s opinion standing alone will not generally be sufficient to establish fair market value, especially in the face of an appraisal based on two accepted approaches to value and supported by sound market data.

Complainant asserted that his property was devalued by the fact that next door to the subject is an abandoned, boarded-up house which has been condemned by the City of St. Charles. However, no substantive evidence was presented upon which the Hearing Officer could determine the economic impact of this factor on the value of the subject. The Board of equalization made an allowance for economic obsolescence and reduced the assessor=s original value by $9,200. There is no evidence in this record from which a rational decision can be made to reduce the value determined by the board by an additional $29,000. Complainant raised this issue. It is not sufficient to say AI believe the next door property devalues my property.@ Complainant bore the burden of establishing the economic impact of this factor. He failed to carry his burden of proof on this point.

The opinion of value presented by Mr. Riney established by a clear and convincing standard a value of $90,000 for the subject property. The five comparable properties all were excellent sales to use in the appraisal problem present in the appeal. The range of adjustments as a net percentage of sales prices fell with acceptable ranges. The market data establish that the subject property would certainly have commanded a sale price of at least $90,000 had it been exposed to the market for a sufficient period of time prior to January, 2003.

The Hearing Officer finds no adjustment to Mr. Riney=s sales comparison opinion of value to account for the subject being next door to a condemned property. However, even with a negative adjustment of $15,000 his appraisal would still provide clear and convincing evidence of a value of $90,000.

Mr. Bybee objected to Mr. Riney=s appraisal report on the ground that he had not conducted an interior inspection of either the subject or of the comparables used in his appraisal. The objection was overruled. Mr. Riney=s failure to conduct an interior inspection of the subject was apparently due to the Complainant refusing to permit an interior inspection. The Hearing Officer will generally view in a negative light a Complainant=s refusal to permit an interior inspection to the appraiser. As to Mr. Riney not inspecting the interior=s of his comparables, it is the customary practice within the appraisal industry that comparables are relied upon without the appraiser having done an interior inspection. This is because that it is not usually possible for an appraiser to inspect comparable sale properties. The inability of the appraiser to force owners of comparable sale properties to let him inspect their homes does not result in the exclusion of the appraisal report from evidence, or to any less weight being given the conclusion of value by the appraiser.

Mr. Bybee also objected to Exhibit 1 because Mr. Riney is not a state licensed or certified real estate appraiser. This objection was likewise overruled. Mr. Riney by his training and experience is qualified as an expert for purposes of appraisal of property for appeals before the Commission. He has testified for a number of years before the Commission. His lack of being licensed or certified goes to the weight that can be given his opinion of value in any given appeal. It is a factor to be considered. While in a particular case this factor might cause a trier of fact to accord less weight to a Riney opinion than to the opinion of a state certified or licensed appraiser, such is not the case in this appeal.

Complainant failed to establish by substantial and persuasive evidence the fair market value of the subject property to be $61,000 on January 1, 2003. Respondent established by substantial and persuasive evidence with both a cost and sales comparison approach a fair market value of $91,360/$105,000 to affirm the Assessor=s value which had been sustained by the Board.

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization for St. Charles County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2003 and 2004 is set at $17,100.

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 St. Charles 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 January 26, 2004.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

W. B. Tichenor

Hearing Officer