OAK TREE REALTY,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 03-58502
	)
ANDREA STEINHOFF, ASSESSOR,	)
GRUNDY COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

The value approved by the Board of Equalization is SUSTAINED.

The issue in this case is the true value in money of a commercial parcel located in Trenton, Grundy County, Missouri.

A hearing was held in the above matter in the Grundy County Courthouse, Trenton, Missouri on August 5, 2004. Complainant was represented by counsel, James Holcomb. Respondent was represented by counsel, Christopher Raynes.

In spite of being notified by counsel, Complainant=s witness failed to appear for the scheduled hearing and could not be located on the morning of the hearing. By agreement of counsel for the parties, the matter was submitted on documents previously submitted pursuant to the Tax Commission scheduling order.

The assessor originally valued the property at $85,000.00 (assessed value $27,200.00). Said value was approved by the Board of Equalization. Complainant appealed asserting a value of $55,500.00 (assessed value $17,760.00). Respondent presented an appraisal report supporting the Board of Equalization value. Complainant presented no valuation evidence. The value determined by the Assessor and approved by the Board of Equalization is SUSTAINED.

The following exhibits were introduced on behalf of Complainant:

Exhibit A, A handwritten document of unknown authorship listing taxes for the years 2000 through 2003.

Exhibit B, A handwritten document of unknown authorship listing what appear to be sales of other properties.

Exhibit C, Photocopies of two checks dated December 30, 1994.

The following exhibits were introduced on behalf of Respondent:

Exhibit 1, An appraisal report for the property identified as 610 Main Street, Trenton, Missouri prepared by Edward Neptune, a certified real estate appraiser, for the Grundy County Commissioners, dated August 20, 2001, showing a value for the subject property of $85,000.00.

Exhibit 2, Minutes of the June 25, 2002 meeting of the Grundy County Commission showing a negotiation between Complainant and the County Commission for the potential purchase of the subject property for $100,000.00.

Exhibit 3, Property record card for the subject property showing a value of $85,000.00.

Exhibit 4, An unexecuted AOption to Purchase Real Estate@ between Complainant and the Grundy County Commission, for the subject property, with a proposed purchase price of $100,000.00.

Exhibit 5, A narrative by Respondent concerning the subject property and comparable land and improvement sales.

1. The subject property is a .63 acre tract located on a corner lot in downtown Trenton, identified as parcel number 11-04-20-01-26-02, commonly known as 610 Main Street, Trenton, Missouri.

The site has 160 feet of frontage on Main Street and 174.66 feet of frontage on 7th Street and 38 feet of frontage on 6th Street. The site has all city utilities, fire and police protection and telephone service. It has good access from Highway 6 and is just a few blocks from Highway 65. It is zoned C-2 downtown business district and conforms to all current zoning laws.

The site is improved with a commercial building containing 7,975 square feet on the main level and a 1,764 square foot basement. The building was constructed in 1949 and has extensive deferred maintenance. The estimated remaining life of the building is approximately 4 years.

2. The assessor originally valued the property at $85,000.00 (assessed value $27,200.00). Said value was approved by the Board of Equalization and is supported by the evidence presented by Respondent. Complainant has failed to present any evidence supporting a different value. The value determined by the Assessor and approved by the Board of Equalization is SUSTAINED.

Section 137.115, RSMo 2000 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).

In order to prevail, a party must present an opinion of value and then must present substantial and persuasive evidence that its proposed value is indicative of the true 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 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 any expert witness and give it as much weight and credit as she may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. The Hearing Officer is not bound by the opinion 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. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W. 2d 605, 607 (Mo. banc 1981).

A party does not meet his burden of proof if evidence on any essential element of his case leaves the Commission Ain the nebulous twilight of speculation, conjecture or surmise.@ Rossman v. G.F.C. Corporation of Missouri, 596 S.W. 2d 469, 472 (Mo. App. 1980).

Complainant has the burden to present substantial and persuasive evidence in support of its opinion of value in order to have the decision of the Board of Equalization set aside. In this case, Complainant has presented no valuation evidence whatsoever. Moreover, Complainant=s witness failed to appear at hearing to explain the documents which had been previously submitted. Complainant has wholly failed to meet its burden of proof. The only valuation evidence before the Commission is the valuation evidence presented by Respondent.

The value initially determined by the Assessor and approved by the Board of Equalization is SUSTAINED.

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 Grundy 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 September 20, 2004.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Luann Johnson

Hearing Officer