FREDRICK & MARTHA POUCHE,	)
	)
Complainants,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 03-79014
	)
CHRISTINE MCQUITTY, ASSESSOR,	)
PLATTE COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

HOLDING

The value determined by the Board of Equalization is AFFIRMED. The correct value for the subject property is $72,657 (assessed value $13,805).

The issues in this case are (1) the true value in money of Complainants= property on January 1, 2003, and January 1, 2004; and (2) whether or not Complainants= property was assessed at a higher percentage of true value than a statistically significant number of other residential properties in the county (discrimination).

A hearing was conducted on November 19, 2003, before Hearing Officer Luann Johnson, at the Platte County Administration Building, Platte City, Missouri. Complainant appeared pro se. Respondent appeared by counsel, John Shank.

The property under appeal is a 12,347 square foot tract improved with a single-family residence. Respondent originally appraised the property at a market value of $72,657 (assessed value $13,805). The Board of Equalization affirmed the assessor=s value. Complainant asserts a value of $60,500 (assessed value $11,485). At hearing Respondent presented an appraisal report demonstrating a value under the market approach of $76,800 (assessed value $14,590). There is no presumption that the assessor=s valuation is correct.

Complainants introduced the following Exhibits:

Exhibit A - A statement of defects in the property and the estimated repair costs.

Exhibit B - A statement asserting that Respondent had a discriminatory motive in determining the value of Complainants= property.

Respondent introduced Exhibit 1, an appraisal report of Lizette Watson.

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

2. The subject property in this appeal is a 12,347 square foot tract improved with a 51 year old ranch-style 2 bedroom home. The house contains 857 square feet of living area on the first floor and a full, unfinished, basement with a one-car garage in that basement. The home is in average condition and suffers from deferred maintenance. The property is identified as parcel number 20-6.0-23-400-003-014-000, more commonly known as 8908 NW Highway 45, Parkville, Platte County, Missouri.

3. Complainants purchased the property in 1996 for $52,000. At the current time, the property improvements are insured for $60,000; indicating a value in excess of $60,000 for the land and improvements. Complainants assert that the market value for the subject property should be between $55,000 and $60,500 but presented no market evidence in support of that value.

4. Complainants estimate that the costs to remedy the deferred maintenance would be approximately $22,750. Respondent=s appraiser acknowledged that the repairs had not been made and adjusted comparable sales $20,000 to account for said deferred maintenance. Complainants presented no bids for the repairs. Respondent=s $20,000 adjustment adequately accounts for the potential market reaction to the deficiencies in Complainants= property.

5. Respondent=s appraiser presented sales of three similar properties within 8 blocks of the subject property. Those properties sold for $89,000, $109,000 and $109,900. After making adjustments for market reaction to areas of significant variation, the comparable sales indicated a range of value for the subject property between $76,800 and $96,915. Respondent=s appraiser determined a value of $76,800 under the sales comparison approach.

6. Because the subject property is a rental property, renting for $500 per month, Respondent=s appraiser also prepared an income approach to value. The value indicated under the income approach was $75,000.

7. Finally, Respondent=s appraiser prepared a cost approach to value. The indicated value by the cost approach was $69,180.

8. The market value of $72,657, as initially determined by the assessor and affirmed by the Board of Equalization, is supported by market evidence. The market value for the subject property on January 1, 2003, was $72,657.

9. No evidence was presented suggesting that new construction of property improvements occurred on the property between January 1, 2003, and the hearing date of November 12, 2003. Therefore, the value determined for tax year 2003 is also the value for tax year 2004.

10. Complainants assert that the increases in the assessments on the subject property were due to animosity between the Complainant, Fredrick Pouche, and the assessor. Complainant Frederick Pouche asserts that, while a member of the Missouri State Legislature, he sponsored several pieces of legislation relating to local property taxes and Boards of Equalization. In response to a request for a fiscal impact statement, Respondent asserted that such legislation was personally motivated because Respondent had refused to lower Complainants= assessed value. The existence of personal animosity between the parties does not demonstrate unlawful discrimination. Complainants have failed to show that their property was assessed at a higher percentage of true value than a statistically significant number of other residential properties in the county and, thus, their discrimination claim fails.

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.

Complainants= Burden of Proof as to Discrimination

Where there is a claim of discrimination based upon a lack of valuation consistency, Complainants have the burden to prove:

1. The level of assessment for the subject property in 2003. This is done by independently determining the market value of the subject property and dividing the market value into the assessed value of the property as determined by the assessor=s office.

2. The average level of assessment for residential property in Platte County in 2003. This is done by (a) independently determining the market value of a representative sample of residential properties in Platte County; (b) determining the assessed value placed on the property the assessor=s office for the relevant year; (c) dividing the assessed value by the market value to determine the level of assessment for each property in the sample; and (d) determining the mean and median of the results.

3. That the disparity between (1) and (2) is grossly excessive. Savage v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 722 S.W.2d 72, 79 (Mo. banc 1986).

In order to prevail, Complainants must present substantial and persuasive evidence supporting their opinion of value or supporting their allegation that they have been discriminated against by Respondent. Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, at 897.

ASubstantial@ 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). APersuasive@ 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 have failed to present any market data which would tend to show that their property was overvalued.

Complainants have also failed to present evidence of discrimination. In order to prevail in a discrimination claim, Complainants first had to establish the market value of their property and, then, establish the market value of a statistically significant number of other residential properties in the county and, finally, demonstrate that their property was being assessed at a higher percentage of true value than the sample of other residential properties. Complainants have failed to meet this burden of proof.

The assessed valuation for the subject property for tax year 2003, as determined by the Board of Equalization, is AFFIRMED. The Clerk is hereby ordered to put the same assessed value on the property for tax year 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 Platte 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 January 16, 2004.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Luann Johnson

Hearing Officer