GARY BARNES,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 03-68500
	)
GRACE THOMAS, ASSESSOR,	)
MADISON COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

The market evidence supports the appraised value of $60,600 ($11,510, assessed) determined by the assessor and affirmed by the Board of Equalization for the residential portion of the subject parcel, which is the only portion of the assessment under dispute. Accordingly, the assessment is affirmed.

Complainant appeals the assessment on the residential portion of his property at 1066 Madison 9434, Fredericktown, Missouri, alleging discrimination and overvaluation in that the cost attributed to his double wide mobile under the Hunnicutt Costing System is too high. The subject property consists of a 8.5 acre parcel, 2 acres of which is improved as residential property. The residential property is improved with a 2001 double wide mobile home, a 40' x 16' shed, and a number of other utility-type structures. The parcel number for the subject property is 79-10-4.0-20-000-000-008.00. Complainant maintains in his Complaint for Review of Assessment that the appropriate 2003 market value for the residential portion of the subject property was $38,830.

The Assessor valued the residential property for the 2003 tax year at $60,600 ($11,510, assessed). The minutes of the Madison County Board of Equalization reflect that the Complainant was heard by the Board of Equalization and since Complainant=s property was not included in the listing of assessment changes made by the Board, reflect an affirmation of the original 2003 assessment.

An evidentiary hearing was held on October 23, 2003, before the Tax Commission Hearing Officer, Aimee Smashey, at the Madison County Courthouse, in Fredericktown, Missouri. Complainant appeared on his own behalf. Respondent, Grace Thomas, appeared in her official capacity as Assessor for Madison County, and was represented by Prosecuting Attorney Dwight Robbins.

Complainant, Mr. Gary Barnes, provided testimony and documentary evidence. He testified that he purchased the mobile home in 2001 for $37,000 and the assessor thereafter valued it for 2003 at approximately $52,000. Tr. 2 - 4. He offered two memoranda from the State Tax Commission to all Assessors providing updated cost rates for manufactured housing and a depreciation schedule offered as a guideline, arguing that absent a better sales study, the county should use the rates recommended by the State Tax Commission.

When asked about the value of the residential portion as a whole, he gave the opinion that since the residential site is so steep, a value of $60,600 would be too high. He noted that if the residential site were flat, a value of $60,600 would be too low. Tr. 7 - 9. He judged that he would be lucky to get $40,000 to $45,000 in the marketplace for the residential portion of the subject property. Tr. 10. He indicated that he would not accept an offer for the residential property in that range, but would sell it for $50,000.

Mr. Barnes offered four exhibits into evidence:

Complainant=s Exhibit A is the Assessor=s property record card for the subject property containing the 2003 assessment data.

Complainant=s Exhibit B is the Coachman Purchase Agreement for the subject manufactured home.

Complainant=s Exhibit C is the State Tax Commission memorandum issued

November 13, 2002, providing updated Hunnicutt Cost System manufactured housing rates for 2003.

Complainant=s Exhibit D is the State Tax Commission memorandum issued January 27, 1997, providing updated mobile home rates and a depreciation schedule.

Each of Complainant=s offered exhibits were received into evidence.

Respondent offered the appraisal testimony and report of certified appraiser, Terance Baker. Mr. Baker used the sales comparison and cost approaches to value the property. In his sales comparison approach, he used three comparable manufactured home sales. He inspected the subject property and each of the comparables to confirm their similarity and inform his analysis of necessary adjustments. He testified that he followed standard sales comparison methodology and concluded a value of $61,900. In his cost approach, he determined a replacement cost of $50,295 for the manufactured home, covered deck and concrete pad, which after depreciation provided an indicated value of $48,620. He calculated the depreciated value of the site improvements to be $8,797 and the market value of the land to be $6,000 for an indicated value of $63,417 for the subject property. He placed primary weight on his sales comparison approach and concluded a market value of $61,900 for the subject property.

Respondent offered the Mr. Baker=s appraisal report as an exhibit at hearing (Respondent=s Exhibit 1). The exhibit was received into evidence.

The issue in this appeal is a determination of the market value of the residential portion of the subject parcel as of January 1, 2003.

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

2. In 2001, Complainant purchased the manufactured home and substantial installation services for $37,000.

3. Complainant paid $1,040 for bulldozer work to level off the site in preparation for the installation of the manufactured home.

4. Complainant performed some minor backhoe work to accommodate the electricity hook-up.

5. Market data was presented to show that area properties improved with manufactured homes have sold in the range of $65,000 to $83,000( $41.67/sq. ft. - $69.17/sq.ft.).

6. This Hearing Officer finds, based upon Respondent=s appraisal approaches, that $61,900 to $63,417 provides a reasonable range of market value for the subject property. This evidence supports the underlying value of $60,600 for the residential portion of the subject property.

Complainant has the burden of presenting substantial and persuasive evidence that his proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject property on January 1, 2003, in order to have that value accepted. 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. See, 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, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).

The purpose of this hearing is to determine the fair market value of the residential portion of the subject property as of January 1, 2003. AMarket value@ is defined as A...[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. Additionally, the cost approach to value is a valid valuation tool, especially when the improvements are relatively new.

Complainant established (1) the contracted price established at the manufactured home lot for a new manufactured home, plus all installation services except electricity hookup; and (2) the amount he had spent on site preparation. This evidence adds up to a cost of around $38,000 for the manufactured home in 2001. When evaluating what he would accept as a seller in exchange for the improved property, he concluded that he would not accept an offer of $40,000, but would accept an offer of $50,000. Respondent=s appraiser relied on three comparable manufactured home sales and made reasonable adjustments to those sales to account for differences between the sale properties and the subject that would carry weight and value in the minds of prospective buyers. After this analysis, the approach supported a range of value from $61,174 - $62,844 for the subject property. This Hearing Officer is persuaded that Respondent=s appraisal provides the best evidence of the market value of the subject property as it sat on January 1, 2003. Respondent=s appraisal indicates a value range of $61,174 - $63,417 which is supportive of the 2003 Board-affirmed assessment on this property. Given these conclusions, the assessment is affirmed.

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Madison County Board of Equalization for the 2003 tax year is hereby AFFIRMED.

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. Section 138.432, RSMo 1994.

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 Madison 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

Aimee Smashey

Hearing Officer

ORDER

On January 16, 2004, Hearing Officer Aimee L. Smashey, entered her Decision and Order (Decision) affirming the assessment by the Madison County Board of Equalization, which had sustained the valuation made by the Assessor.

Complainant timely filed (February 17, 2004) his Application for Review of the Decision. Respondent timely filed (March 17, 2004) her Response.

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).

The Commission will not lightly interfere with the Hearing Officer=s Decision and substitute its judgment on the credibility of witnesses and weight to be given the evidence for that of the Hearing Officer as the trier of fact. Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Lowe v. Lombardi, 957 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997); Forms World, Inc. v. Labor and Industrial Relations Com=n, 935 S.W.2d 680 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996); Evangelical Retirement Homes v. STC, 669 S.W.2d 548 (Mo. 1984); Pulitzer Pub. Co. v. Labor and Indus. Relations Commission, 596 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. 1980); St. Louis County v. STC, 562 S.W.2d 334 (Mo. 1978); St. Louis County v. STC, 406 S.W.2d 644 (Mo. 1966).

Complainant=s Application for Review is essentially a rearguing of the evidence presented in the evidentiary hearing. No specific allegation of error on the part of the Hearing Officer was set forth by Complainant. Complainant only questioned the value which had been assigned by the Assessor to his mobile home. He was not in effect challenging the value on the real property as a whole. Complainant presented no evidence to establish what the value of the subject tract would be as of January 1, 2003.

A review of the record in the present appeal provides support for the determinations made by the Hearing Officer. There is competent and substantial evidence to establish a sufficient foundation for the Decision of the Hearing Officer. A reasonable mind could have conscientiously reached the same result based on a review of the entire record. The Commission finds no basis to support a determination that the Hearing Officer acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner or abused his discretion as the trier of fact and concluder of law in this appeal. Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888 (Mo. 1978); Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Holt v. Clarke, 965 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998); Smith v. Morton, 890 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). Phelps v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 598 S.W.2d 163 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980).

Complainant failed to set forth any legal claim or basis as a ground to find the Hearing Officer had abused her discretion or acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. Complainant simply had an opinion as to the fair market value of the mobile home different from that determined by the Hearing Officer. In other words, Complainant failed to state specific grounds upon which it was claimed the decision was erroneous. The Hearing Officer properly valued the real property as a whole. In the absence of specific errors in applying the law, the Application for Review must be summarily denied.

The Hearing Officer did not err in her determinations as challenged by Complainant.

The Commission upon review of the record and Decision in this appeal, finds no grounds upon which the Decision of the Hearing Officer should be reversed or modified. Accordingly, the Decision is affirmed.

Judicial review of this Order may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.432 and 536.100 to 536.140, RSMo within thirty days of the date of the mailing of this Order.

SO ORDERED April 20, 2004.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Sam D. Leake, Chairman

Bruce E. Davis, Commissioner

Jennifer Tidwell, Commissioner