JAMES R. REPASS,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 03-79019
	)
CHRISTINE MCQUITTY, ASSESSOR,	)
PLATTE COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

HOLDING

The value determined by the Board of Equalization is SET ASIDE. The correct value for the subject property is $200,000 (assessed value $38,000).

The issue in this case is the true value in money of Complainant=s property on January 1, 2003, and January 1, 2004.

A hearing was conducted on November 5, 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 ten acre tract improved with a single-family residence. Respondent originally appraised the property at a market value of $277,274 (assessed value $52,682). The Board of Equalization reduced value to $225,000 (assessed value $42,750). Complainant asserts a value of $200,000 (assessed value $38,000). At hearing Respondent presented an appraisal report demonstrating a value under the market approach of $292,000 (assessed value $55,480). There is no presumption that the assessor=s valuation is correct.

Complainant introduced Exhibit 1 which included maps and information on the subject property.

Respondent introduced an appraisal report of Allen Hickman which was marked as Exhibit A.

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

2. The subject of this appeal is a 2,398 square foot ranch-style home on a 10 acre site. The home was built in 1991 and is in good condition and quality. It has three bedrooms, two and one half baths, a two-car attached garage and a two-car detached garage. The property is also improved with a porch, deck, fence, pool and gazebo. The property is identified as parcel number 18-8.0-33-000-000-007-000, more commonly known as 3525 NW 100th Street, Kansas City, Platte County, Missouri.

3. Complainant=s claim of overvaluation is based upon the premise of extreme external obsolescence. Unbeknownst to Complainant, in 1990, the City of Kansas City had mapped the area around his property for future use as a roadway. In 1998, Complainant was advised that the City of Kansas intended to condemn the house and most of the 10 acres in order to create a roadway. In 2001, the City sent two appraisers to the property to appraise it for condemnation purposes. And, in 2003, the City sent out surveyors to survey Complainant=s property.

4. Despite repeated attempts, Complainant has not been able to obtain a copy of the City=s appraisal report; nor has the City been willing to discuss a time frame in which the condemnation of Complainant=s property will occur.

5. Complainant attempted to market the property in 2002. He listed the property for six months but only had one interested party. That party met with the Parks Department of the City of Kansas City and, thereafter, refused to purchase the property based upon conversations with the Parks Department concerning condemnation.

6. Complainant=s property suffers from external obsolescence because of the pending condemnation.

7. Complainant asserts that the property can have a value of no more than $200,000 because of the pending condemnation.

8. Respondent=s appraiser did not consider the potential adverse affect of the pending condemnation on the value of the subject property. He testified that the county was not aware of a pending condemnation but, in his opinion, a negative influence would not exist until after the condemnation occurred.

9. Respondent=s appraiser found sales of three comparable properties within nine miles of the subject property. After adjustments for areas of significant variation, those comparable sales indicated a value for the subject property of $292,000 on January 1, 2003. No adjustments were made for external obsolescence.

10. The most likely price the subject property would sell for on the tax day was $200,000, or less.

11. No evidence was presented which suggested that any new construction or property improvements occurred after January 1, 2003. Therefore, the value established for 2003 shall also be the value for tax year 2004.

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, Complainant 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.

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.

Complainant established that, more likely than not, his property would be condemned by the City of Kansas City.

This case presents a very unusual fact situation that does not lend itself to easy resolution. Through the actions of a governmental entity, Complainant has lost the ability to sell his property. This is a form of economic obsolescence where factors outside Complainant=s control adversely affect his property rights and the market value of his property. Ultimately, that governmental entity may agree to give Complainant the market value of his property. But, in the meantime, the economic obsolescence must be recognized in some fashion. It is not appropriate to further penalize Complainant for the unilateral actions of the City of Kansas City. To force Complainant to hold his property rights in limbo while the City is deciding what to do with his property is unconscionable and equity demands some relief.

It is the job of the Tax Commission to determine the market value of Complainant=s property on January 1, 2003. Under these facts, we hold that the owner of the property is the only one who is a position to assess the negative impact of the City=s pending condemnation on the current market value of his property. Thus, we find the owner=s opinion of value to be persuasive.

This Hearing Officer notes, and agrees with, Respondent=s assertion that not all proposed condemnation projects actually occur and the mere possibility of a future condemnation may not always have a significant impact on market value. However where, as here, the condemning political subdivision has begun taking steps to commence the condemnation proceedings - such as surveying and appraising the property - economic obsolescence must be addressed.

The assessed valuation for the subject property for tax year 2003, as determined by the Board of Equalization, is SET ASIDE. The Clerk is hereby ordered to put a new assessed value of $38,000 on the property for tax years 2003 and 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