NANCY DEFRATES,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)		Appeal Number 04-74000
	)
	)
GLORIA GOURLEY, ASSESSOR,	)
NEWTON COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

The market evidence presented supports the Assessor’s valuation. The assessment is affirmed.

The issue in this appeal is: What was the market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2003?

Complainant appeals the assessment of a 14.1 acre parcel improved with a doublewide mobile home, a barn and two sheds. Respondent valued the property at a market value of $85,200 for a corresponding residential assessment of $16,190. The Newton County Board of Equalization reviewed and affirmed this assessment. Complainant proposed a market value of $65,000 to $70,000 for the property as of the tax date. Respondent presented evidence in support of her initial valuation and assessment for the 2004 tax year.

The evidentiary hearing in the above-styled appeal was held on Thursday, October 21, 2004 before State Tax Commission Hearing Officer, Aimee L. Smashey, at the Newton County Courthouse, Neosho, Missouri. Ms. Nancy J. DeFrates appeared on her own behalf. Ms. Gloria Gourley appeared in her official capacity as Assessor for Newton County.

Ms. DeFrates testified that she received her notice of increase in 2003, called the assessor to inquire about the increase, and was informed that the assessment increase would only amount to a "$40 or so" increase in taxes. She judged that an increase in that amount was acceptable and did not pursue an appearance before the Board of Equalization for the 2003 year.

She indicated that she was "shocked" when she later received her 2003 tax bill for $686.08, which was a $457.90 increase over her 2002 tax bill of $228.18. She promptly visited the Assessor’s office and was told that her "…property wasn’t visited by the assessor’s office for a few years and since that time [there were] new buildings on the property." Complainant’s Exhibit A. Ms. DeFrates further testified that her outbuildings are 18 years old, her house is over 5 years old, and she had been visited on-site by representatives from the assessor’s office twice within the last couple of years. Ms. DeFrates then learned that she would have to wait until the Board of Equalization met in July of 2004 in order to have her assessment reviewed. She waited until July of 2004, and after some difficulty getting an appointment with the Board, she appeared before the Newton County Board of Equalization. At that hearing, rather than discussing the existence and age of her outbuildings, the discussion was directed to her house and not the outbuildings which she had previously been told was the issue. In concluding her testimony, she indicated her frustration with the changing explanation for the change in assessment (Tr. 6 lines 6 – 11).

Ms. DeFrates opines that she would expect to be able to sell the subject property in the range of $65,000 to $70,000 as of January 1, 2003. Ms. DeFrates holds a realtor sales person’s license but is not actively selling property at the present time.

Ms. DeFrates submitted Exhibit 1, a letter dated 12-15-03 and copies of tax receipts in support of her position:

Ms. Gourley testified that the subject property consists of a 14.1 acre parcel improved with a 36 x 72 foot barn (constructed in 1986 and additional construction in 1996), a 30 x 36 foot shed (constructed in 1997), a 12 x 15 foot shed (age unknown), and a 28 x 76 foot doublewide mobile home (1998). In valuing the property she valued the doublewide mobile home and 1 acre home site at a market value of $64,500 for a residential assessment of $12,260. She valued the remainder of the acreage, the barn and the two sheds as agricultural property. The barn was valued at $12,320, the larger shed at $3,970, the smaller shed at $750, and the remainder of the acreage at $3,714 for a total of $20,700, which indicated an agricultural assessment of $2,484. The age of the smaller shed is not known. The smaller shed was added to the tax rolls in 2003.

Ms. Gourley noted that her property record card for the subject property indicated that her staff made a site inspection on May 6, 2002, noted the presence of the doublewide mobile home rather than the former single wide, spoke to Ms. DeFrates, and learned that the double wide mobile home had been at the subject property for four years at that point in time. The property record card reflected that prior to the may 6, 2002 inspection, the last time that any assessment staff had stopped and spoken to anyone at the subject property was in 1997 when the singlewide mobile home was present. Ms. Gourley opined that the change from the singlewide mobile home to the double wide mobile home that was not noted for the assessment records until 2003 was the primary reason for the increased assessment for the 2003 and 2004 tax years.

Ms. Gourley testified that she conducted a Mobile and Modular Home Cost Study and concluded a market trend of $30 to $35 per square foot for a doublewide mobile home in the subject area. Those costs were consistent with the State Tax Commission’s recommended costs, which ranged from $25.95 to $42.20 per square foot in Region 3 for a doublewide mobile home.

Ms. Gourley also submitted sales of property improved with doublewide mobile homes as reports in sales letters returned to the Assessor. The sales indicate a market value range of $80,000 to $92,000 for a residential site improved with a doublewide mobile home and outbuildings.

Ms. Gourley presented Exhibit A, Summary of Testimony and Comparable Sales Letters in support of her valuation and assessment:

1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. On July 22, 2004, the Newton County Board of Equalization issued a decision affirming the Assessor’s valuation of the subject property. On August 20, 2004, Complainant filed her Complaint for Review of Assessment with the State Tax Commission.

2. The subject property consists of a 14.1 acre parcel, a 1998 doublewide mobile home, a 36 x 72 foot barn (constructed in 1986 and additional construction in 1996), a 30 x 36 foot shed (constructed in 1997), and a 12 x 15 foot shed. The subject property is identified by parcel number 015-7.0-26-000-000-028.000. The subject property is located at 14568 Depot Drive, Neosho, Missouri.

3. There were no improvements made to the subject property during the 2003 calendar year.

4. The market sales for properties like the subject property indicate a range in value from $80,000 to $92,000. There were no market data presented to support a reduction in the assessment.

Complainant has the burden of presenting substantial and persuasive evidence that her 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. "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).

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. "Market value" is defined as "...[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 to meet this definition would be open market sales activity of the subject parcel or comparable parcels. Additionally, the cost approach to value is a valid valuation tool, especially when the improvements are relatively new.

The only sales data presented at hearing were the 6 comparable sales submitted by Ms. Gourley. These sales indicate a range in market value from $80,000 to $92,000. These sales were obtained from sales letters submitted by the property owners to the Assessor’s office. These data support the Assessor’s valuation of the subject property. There were no market data presented to support a reduction in the assessment.

It is understandably frustrating and regrettable that Ms. DeFrates had such a difficult time attempting to learn the nature of her assessment increase and ascertaining the process for having her assessment reviewed. In reviewing her testimony and letter it is easy to see why she may have lost confidence in the assessment process. It is the Commission’s and surely Respondent’s intention that assessment staff be well-trained, competent, professional, and cognizant that they are public servants. We regret that in Ms. DeFrates’ recent experience the assessment staff missed the mark.

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Newton County Board of Equalization for the subject tax day is 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.

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 Newton 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 these appeals. 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 February 18, 2005.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Aimee Smashey

Hearing Officer