JAMES P. & SHARON E. LEONARD,	)
	)
Complainants,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 03-10332
	)
PHILIP MUEHLHEAUSLER, ASSESSOR,	)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization reducing the assessment made by the Assessor, SET ASIDE, Hearing Officer finds true value in money for the subject property for tax years 2003 and 2004 to be $220,000, assessed value of $41,800.

Complainant, Sharon E. Leonard, appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared by Counsel, Paula J. Lemerman, Associate 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.

Complainants appeal, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization which reduced the valuation of the subject property. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $229,530 (assessed value of $43,610, as residential property). The Board reduced the value to $215,000 (assessed value of $40,850) Complainant proposed a value of $204,475 (assessed value of $38,850). A hearing was conducted on April 22, 2004, at the St. Louis County Government Center, Clayton, Missouri.

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

Ms. Leonard testified on behalf of the Complainants. Ms. Leonard gave her opinion of value of $204,475. This value was calculated by her husband performing an analysis of land and improvement values to arrive at a percentage that was applied to arrive at the indicated value. Ms. Leonard was unable to give any explanation relative to this methodology utilized by her husband.

Ms. Leonard offered into evidence Exhibit A which consisted of various documents related to the valuation of the subject property. Counsel for Respondent objected to the portion of Exhibit A identified as Market Data Property Comparison Chart and the supporting documents and photographs related thereto. Respondent=s objection was on the grounds of relevancy, lack of comparability of alleged comparable properties due to location, and lack of foundation to establish the comparison to be an accepted and recognized methodology for the appraisal of real property. The objection was sustained and that portion of Exhibit A following the divider labeled as: Comparable Sales Analysis - All Ranches - Ladue Schools - Same Tax Rate was excluded. See, DECISION, infra, as to discussion of weight and probative value of Complainant=s evidence and basis for objection being sustained.

Respondent placed into evidence the testimony of Mr. John D. Rebsamen, Missouri State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser for St. Louis County. The appraiser testified as to his appraisal of the subject property. The Appraisal Report, Exhibit 1, of Mr. Rebsamen was received into evidence. Mr. Rebsamen arrived at an opinion of value for the subject property of $220,000 based upon a sales comparison approach to value. In performing his sales comparison analysis, the appraiser relied upon the sales of three properties which he deemed to be comparable to the subject property.

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

2. The subject property is located at 2131 Oak Drive, Crystal Lake Park, Missouri. The property is identified by locator number 21N440914. The property consists of .25 of an acre lot improved by a one-story masonry and frame ranch single-family structure of average quality construction. The house was built in 1974 and appears to be in average condition. The residence has a total of seven rooms, which includes three bedrooms, two full baths, and contains 2,100 square feet of living area. There is a full basement and an attached two-car side entry garage. There was no listing or sale of the property noted within three years prior to the tax date of January 1, 2003. The house has deferred maintenance noted on the exterior; wood trim, tuck pointing at chimney, damaged deck boards and landscaping timbers. The kitchen and bathrooms are dated and appear to be original. The carpet and vinyl flooring shows wear. Settlement and cracking of concrete was noted on the garage slab, laundry room and basement floor. Currently the range hood fan and fireplace are non-functional. Exhibit 1, p.5.

3. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2003, to January 1, 2004.

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 $204,475.

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 .25 of a mile of the subject. Each sale property sold at a time relevant to the tax date of January 1, 2003. The sale properties were similar to the subject in style, quality of construction, age, condition, room, bedroom and bathroom count, living area, location, site size and other amenities of comparability. Exhibit 1, pp. 6-8.

6. The comparables were described as follows:

Comparable 1 (2104 Lakeview Drive - .10 of a mile southwest of the subject) sold in January 2003 for $240,000. This property consists of a .27 of an acre lot improved by a one-story masonry and frame vinyl-sided single-family structure of average quality construction. The house was built in 1972 and appears to be in average to good condition. The residence has a total of nine rooms, which includes four bedrooms, three full baths, and contains 1,987 square feet of living area. There is a full basement, which has 750 square feet of living area. There is an attached two-car garage.

Comparable 2 (2301 Divot Drive - .21 of a mile northeast of the subject) sold in October 2000 for $208,500. This property consists of a .23 of an acre lot improved by a one-story masonry single-family structure of average quality construction. The house was built in 1956 and appears to be in average to good condition. The residence has a total of six rooms, which includes three bedrooms, three full baths, and contains 1,638 square feet of living area. There is a full basement, which has 500 square feet of living area. There is an attached one-car carport.

Comparable 3 (2325 Divot Drive - .25 of a mile northeast of the subject) sold in June 2002 for $210,750. This property consists of a .22 of an acre lot improved by a one-story brick single-family structure of average quality construction. The house was built in 1968 and appears to be in average to good condition. The residence has a total of six rooms, which includes three bedrooms, two full baths, and contains 1,458 square feet of living area. There is a full basement, which has 500 square feet of living area. There is an attached two-car garage.

7. The appraiser made various adjustments to the comparable properties for differences which existed between the subject and each comparable. All adjustments appear to be appropriate to bring the comparables in line with the subject for purposes of the appraisal problem. The appraiser accounted for the inferior condition of the subject property by a negative adjustment of $7,500 to each of the comparable properties.

8. The net adjustments for Comparable 1 amounted to -$13,900 or 5.79% of the sales price. The net adjustments for Comparable 2 amounted to +$11,800 or 5.66% of the sales price. The net adjustments for Comparable 3 amounted to +$8,300 or 3.94% of the sales price.

9. The adjusted sales prices for the comparables calculated to $226,100, $220,300 and $219,050, respectively. The appraiser concluded on a $220,000 value which calculated to a value per square foot of $104.76 compared with the sales prices per square foot of living area for the comparables of $120,79, $127.29 and $144.55.

10. Respondent did not have to meet a standard of clear, convincing and cogent evidence in this appeal, under the provisions of Section 137.115, RSMo, as he was not seeking to sustain the original valuation presumed to have been made by a computer, computer-assisted method or a computer program.

11. Respondent=s evidence met the standard of substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the value of the subject, as of January 1, 2003, to be $220,000.

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).

The presumption in favor of the Board is not evidence. A presumption simply accepts something as true without any substantial proof to the contrary. In an evidentiary hearing before the Commission, the valuation determined by the Board is accepted as true only until and so long as there is no substantial evidence to the contrary.

There is no presumption that the assessor=s valuation is correct. Section 138.431.3, RSMo.

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 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. 3.

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, 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).

Respondent, when advocating a value different from that determined by the original valuation or a valuation made by the Board of Equalization, must meet the same burden of proof to present substantial and persuasive evidence of the value advocated as required of the Complainant under the principles established by case law. Hermel, Cupples-Hesse, Brooks, supra.

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 did not present an opinion of value which was based on or substantiated by any of the recognized and accepted approaches to the valuation of real property. An owner=s opinion, without proper support derived from a proper market analysis, does not possess sufficient probative weight to establish fair market value. Specifically, an unsupported owner=s opinion is not based on proper elements and a proper foundation. Therefore, it has no probative value. Such is the case in this appeal.

The Hearing Officer notes that with the Complaint for Review of Assessment filed in this appeal was a statement which asserted that the value of the subject property should only be increased by 11% for land value and 15% for improvement value. This was the basis for the Complainant=s opinion of value. This methodology is flawed from the outset because there is no method of appraisal which simply makes a certain percentage of increase based upon the value determined by the Assessor for a prior assessment cycle. This opinion of value is further without any probative value due to the fact that Complainants start their valuation methodology by relying on the valuation which the Assessor determined in the 2001 assessment cycle.

The value arrive at by the Assessor in the prior assessment cycle is irrelevant for purposes of a 2003 appeal. By statute there is no presumption that the Assessor=s value was correct in 2001. Therefore, to start with that value and then make some percentage adjustment for land and improvement values is to start from an erroneous assumption.

Furthermore, there is nothing in this record which would establish that land values in the subject market area increase by only 11% or by any other percentage. Nor is there evidence that improvement values increased by 15% or any other amount. Many taxpayers like to extrapolate the percentage of increase from one assessment cycle to the next and attempt to make an argument based upon the fact that values increase by a certain percentage. This type of analysis is very appealing because it is a simple exercise in math to arrive at percentages. However, it establishes nothing when one is addressing the issue of fair market value.

It simply does not matter how much one property or any number of properties may have increased or decreased in the Assessor=s valuation from one assessment cycle to the next. The issue is not how much of a percentage increase occurred or how much is appropriate. The issue is what is the fair market value (true value in money) for the property on a given tax date. There are recognized methods for calculating that value in the absence of an actual market sale of the subject at a time relevant to the tax date. Arriving at a certain percentage increase based on valuations made by the Assessor from one cycle to another is not a method for valuation that is recognized or accepted by the courts of this state or the Commission.

The most widely accepted and generally most persuasive method for single family residences is the sales comparison approach or market approach. Complainants= evidence failed to establish by a recognized approach to value that the fair market value of the subject property on January 1, 2003, was $204,475. Complainants failed to meet their burden to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the value which they presented.

Complainants offered into evidence a number of documents which were contained in Exhibit A. None of the documents individually or collective establish a fair market value for the property as advocated by the Complainants.

This document is a copy of the computer generated mass appraisal for the subject property. The subject property is compared to five sale properties selected by the computer system and then each sale price is adjusted to arrive at indicated values and a final market value of the subject property. Many taxpayers like to offer this document into evidence in an attempt to demonstrate that the computer assisted mass appraisal is in error. If the issue before the Commission was whether the mass appraisal was correct, this document would have some relevance.

However, the Commission is not reviewing how the mass appraisal arrived at value. Furthermore, in this appeal the Assessor was not attempting to sustain the value determined by the mass appraiser. Neither was the Assessor attempting to establish value by use of the mass appraisal system. Finally, by statute the Assessor is required, if he were attempting to sustain the original computer assisted value to present evidence of value based upon a sales comparison appraisal. That the Assessor did in this appeal. In short, this part of Exhibit A has no probative value, at least not to benefit the Complainants= claim of a value of only $204,475, since this document provides nothing that will support such a value.

The list of physical characteristics or items of deferred maintenance and repair is something that is always helpful to gain an understanding of the physical condition of a given property. In the present appeal, Respondent=s appraiser was made aware of these items and acknowledge same in his appraisal report. Exhibit 1, p. 5. Furthermore, Mr. Rebsamen properly accounted for the negative impact which the needed repairs pose for the subject property. He made an adjustment to each comparable to account for the subject=s inferior condition.

The photographs also help to understand the items relating to condition. However, photographs never establish a basis for the dollar adjustments that may or may not be required depending on the general condition of comparable properties. Therefore, while the photographs let the Hearing Officer actually view some of the deferred maintenance items, they do not establish that the adjustment made by Respondent=s appraiser was not appropriate.

The photographs of the property next door and across the street are helpful to understand the subject location. However, these photographs do not provide the complete view of the subject street or subject subdivision. To the extent that the properties next door and across the street may have some negative influence on the Complainants= property value that is an issue on which they had the burden of proof to establish how and to what extent, if any, the market place would account for any influence.

Simply showing photographs of the two properties provides absolutely no basis for the Hearing Officer to make some type of adjustment to value. If the market would in some fashion reflect a negative influence due to the neighboring properties it was not established on this record. No investigation was provided as to a paired sales analysis to demonstrate what if any effect these properties may have had on other properties which they might influence in prior sales. No comparison was provided by Complainants which would establish that similar properties in the subject subdivision that would not be impacted by the location of these properties sell for a greater amount due to that factor.

While it is clear from the photographs that the two neighboring properties are not of the same style as the subject house, both properties appear to be in very well kept condition. There is simply no basis provided by Complainants upon which the Hearing Officer might make a further adjustment to the value determined by the only persuasive evidence on this record (Exhibit 1) to account for a supposed negative influence from these properties. The Hearing Officer notes that the Respondent=s appraiser did not deem this factor sufficient to make an adjustment for it. In the absence of any evidence on the point, the Hearing Officer concurs with Mr. Rebsamen that no adjustment is warranted from the market.

Repair estimates are helpful in the appraisal process. They actually are more helpful to the appraiser, since it provides a basis upon which an analysis of cost to repair can be compared to the market. It is hardly ever the case that the dollar for dollar cost to repair or update will be recovered in the sale of the property. In other words, totally re-carpeting a home before putting it on the market will certain make for a more saleable home, and will no doubt increase the sales price it can command to some extent. However, the market will not usually return the entire cost of new carpet in the sales price.

Complainants placed into evidence estimates for the following repair bids and estimates: (1) repair and cleaning of fireplace ($668.); (2) piering and mudjacking to subject($8400); (3) treatment for termites ($900); (4) floor work in 2 rooms (2560). No correlation was provided as to the market impact for these repairs/renovations. The item for treatment of termites does not constitute repair for past termite damage. Nor was it established that the house actually has a current infestation of termites. Accordingly, this estimate does not address any item of deferred maintenance.

The fireplace is non-functioning. Part of the estimate was for cleaning the flue. This is, of course, not an actual item of repair, but simply general maintenance like unto washing of windows. The piering and mudjacking addresses the settlement problem which would generally be a condition that one might expect to find an approximately thirty year old property. The floor repair does not appear to address an actual issue of deferred maintenance, but would be more in the area of an updating, similar to the updating for an original kitchen or original baths.

Had Respondent=s appraiser not accounted for the generally inferior condition of the subject as compared to the sale properties used in the appraisal, some of the repair estimates would have provided a basis for an adjustment for these and the other deferred maintenance factors. However, given the fact that a condition adjustment was made by Mr. Rebsamen the Hearing Officer has no basis upon which an additional adjustment should be made. Complainants bear the burden to establish their case. Although repair estimates are helpful, such estimates do not, standing alone, establish any particular value for the subject. To the extent that the condition factors which are addressed by estimates of repair factor into fair market value, Complainants must do more than simply demonstrate estimated costs for repairs. They must establish the correlation necessary to establish the impact upon market value. That was not done by Complainants in this instance.

The final group of documents consists of a chart which makes a comparison of the subject to four other properties. Included with this information is a copy of a real estate listing document on each of the sale properties and photographs of the sale properties and the property which is across the street from each sale property. Ms. Leonard testified that she calculated the average sale price per square foot to be $94.85 and applied that to the subject to arrive at an indicated value of $199,190 for the subject.

Counsel for Respondent objected to this portion of Exhibit A on the grounds of relevancy due to the fact that the comparables used were located some distance from the subject in another municipality than the subject. Ms. Leonard believed the fact that the sale properties and the subject were all located in the Ladue school district was sufficient to establish the relevancy of such sales. Counsel for Respondent also objected to the sales analysis on the ground of lack of foundation that the methodology employed is a recognized approach to appraising property. The objection was sustained on both grounds. The sales analysis and supporting documents and photographs were excluded from evidence.

Complainant Not Qualified As Expert

The testimony of Ms. Leonard failed to establish first that she possessed the necessary education, training and experience to testify as an expert on the appraisal of real property. She is not a licensed or certified residential real estate appraiser in this state. In addition, by her testimony Ms. Leonard established that she did not properly understand the sales comparison approach to value.

Averaging Method Improper

The method used by Ms. Leonard was to simply calculate the average selling price per square foot and apply that to the subject=s living area. When a taxpayer desires to utilize some innovative and creative method for the valuation of real property, the taxpayer has the burden to establish that the method which they have devised has been recognized and accepted for the appraisal of real property. No such showing was made on this record. The averaging of sales prices is a faulty procedure and is not recognized or accepted for appraisal of property before the Commission. Real Estate Valuation in Litigation, J. D. Eaton, M.A.I., American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (1982), p.159.

Sale Properties Not Proper Comparables

An additional problem with the Comparable Sales Analysis is that the sale properties used are clearly beyond the generally accepted limit of one mile for purposes of comparison. Baring circumstances that require an appraiser to go beyond the one mile standard, it is always best to utilize sales which are in the subject market area or more particularly in the subject subdivision. Certainly, except in rare instances, sales should be taken from at least the same municipality. The fact that properties happen to be in the same school district is not sufficient to ignore sales in the subject market area and/or subdivision. Ignoring valid market area sales to go across two or three municipalities to a municipality that is five miles or more in distance from the subject to utilize sales is not acceptable appraisal practice.

In the present case, the evidence clearly establishes that there were proper sale properties which qualified as comparables located within less then a mile of the subject, in the subject=s school district, municipality (Crystal Lake Park), subdivision and market area. There was simply no need to venture four or five miles away into Olivette to seek comparable sales. The use of four sales in Olivette disqualify the sale comparison on its face, as such sales are not relevant for the valuation of the subject property.

Sale Prices Not Adjusted

Even if the four sale properties used by Ms. Leonard had been located within a proper distance to be considered as comparable properties, the attempted sale comparison would still have been fatally flawed as an appraisal methodology. The presentation of sale properties, no matter how detailed the description of the various factors of comparability may be does not establish fair market value. It is not the responsibility of the Hearing Officer to take raw sales data and attempt to perform a sales comparison analysis for appraising the property. Not only is it not the Hearing Officer=s responsibility, it would be improper for him to do so.

To take raw sales data and then to make various adjustments to that data to arrive at value, would place the Hearing Officer in the position of actually attempting to meet the burden of proof on behalf of the party offering the sales data. This the Hearing Officer cannot do. For to do so would remove the Hearing Officer from the position of being the trier of fact and concluder of law to the position of being the advocate for a given party.

When Complainants present unadjusted sales data it does not establish fair market value. It has no relevancy even though in a given case some or all of the sale properties might be acceptable sale comparables to be used by an appraiser (such was not the case in this instance) No proper foundation has been laid as to an opinion of value derived from a listing of sales properties to which no proper adjustments have been made for appraisal purposes. Such documents are not relevant to the issue of fair market value and do not possess the requisite foundation to be accepted into evidence. Accordingly, when such information and documents are offered, as in this case, upon objection by the opposing party, such objection must be sustained and the documents excluded.

The evidence presented on behalf of the Respondent was substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the value of $220,000 proffered by Mr. Rebsamen. The appraisal report prepared by a state certified real estate appraiser will in most instances establish a prima facie case of fair market value. Such was the case in this appeal. There is no evidence in this report upon which the Hearing Officer can rationally and logically reject Mr. Rebsamen=s opinion of value.

Furthermore, the Hearing Officer finds the appraisal to be well reasoned and well supported. Mr. Rebsamen clearly understood that the subject property was in generally inferior condition to his three sale comparables. He accounted for this by making his adjustment to condition. This was the proper adjustment to make when the subject has issues of deferred maintenance and the comparable properties do not suffer from this influence.

Mr. Rebsamen believed in his opinion that the market would reflect a $7,500 difference in value for the less desirable condition of the subject. There is no evidence upon which the Hearing Officer is persuaded that this adjustment was not adequate. In the absence of some compelling evidence to refute any specific adjustment, it is not the Hearing Officer=s obligation to arbitrarily set aside the opinion of an expert and substitute his own judgment. In the present instance, the Hearing Officer has no such evidence to challenge the condition adjustment. The only evidence on this point is the adjustment amount set by Respondent=s appraiser.

The various other adjustments which were made for the other differences between the subject and each comparable appear appropriate to account for the market relative to these factors. The appraisal of real property is not an exact science. What the market will actually recognize for any one of the various amenities that exist for a comparable and for the property being appraised can hardly ever be isolated from a sale price. However, all adjustments are in line with what the Hearing Officer recognizes to be appropriate for properties of the style, age and condition of the subject.

Mr. Rebsamen did not feel an adjustment for the type of neighboring property and property across from the subject was required. The Hearing Officer finds no defect in the appraisal on this point. Complainants raised the issue, therefore the burden of proof, as discussed above, was on them to establish if and how the market might reflect this factor. Simply because a taxpayer questions or raises a potential factor in an appeal, does not require the Respondent to prove or disprove anything at that point. If a prima facie case is made on such a factor by a taxpayer, the Respondent may need to bring forth evidence in response or rebuttal. However, simply raising the issue, without supporting evidence as to a possible market influence or impact, falls short of establishing a prima facie case on such an issue.

Complainants= evidence did not establish a fair market value of the property based upon proper elements and a proper foundation. Accordingly, the opinion presented by Complainants, both in their Complaint for Review of Assessment and by Ms. Leonard=s testimony at trial, could be given no evidentiary weight or probative value. Complainants failed to meet their burden of proof.

Respondent, in advocating a value greater than that determined by the Board, rebutted the presumption of correct assessment and establish the fair market value of $220,000 based upon substantial and persuasive evidence.

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2003 and 2004 is set at $41,800.

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. Louis 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 May 11, 2004.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

W. B. Tichenor

Hearing Officer