State Tax Commission of
KAREN KELLOGG, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 05-73010
)
ROBERT RAINES, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER
AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION
UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
On January 20, 2006, Senior Hearing Officer, W. B. Tichenor, entered his Decision and Order (Decision) affirming the assessment by the Morgan County Board of Equalization.
Complainant timely filed her Application for Review of the Decision.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Standard Upon Review
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 (
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 or other witnesses who testify on the issue of reasonable
value, but may believe all or none of the testimony and accept it in part or
reject it in part.
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 (
DECISION
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 (
Complainant’s letter setting forth her Application for Review was essentially an argument as to the conclusions reached by the Hearing Officer. Complainant failed to set forth any legal claim or basis as a ground to find the Hearing Officer had abused his discretion or acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner. In other words, Complainant failed to state specific grounds upon which it was claimed the decision was erroneous. In the absence of specific facts of error or specific errors in applying the law, the Application for Review must be summarily denied.
The Hearing Officer did not err in his determinations as challenged by Complainant.
Complainant submitted with her application for review two documents identified as Exhibits A and B. These documents were not part of the record in the appeal before the Hearing Officer, therefore, no error was committed in not giving consideration to them. Furthermore, when filing an application for review, neither party is entitled to offer additional evidence. Therefore, no consideration can be given to Exhibits A and B.
The Hearing Officer’s determination that Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a fair market value is well supported by the record in this appeal. Complainant when asked by the Hearing Officer as to her opinion of the fair market value of the subject property responded that she didn’t know. Complainant’s Testimony. As the Hearing Officer found, Complainant’s only real issue at the evidentiary hearing was that no value should be given to the one structure (old abandoned residence) on the subject property. Respondent agreed but presented evidence to establish that the fair market value of Complainant’s nearly 120 acres of $95,200 was appropriate irrespective of any valuation being given to the buildings located on the subject property. See, DECISION, Complainant’s Burden of Proof, pp. 5-6.
Complainant’s challenges to the Assessor’s valuation (Exhibit 1) finding an indicated value for the subject property of $12,160 are irrelevant, because the Hearing Officer did not affirm the Board’s valuation based upon this evidence. The Board’s value was sustained because Complainant failed to meet her burden of proof to present substantial and persuasive evidence to establish and fair market value. See, DECISION, Complainant’s Burden of Proof, pp. 5-7. If Respondent’ had presented no evidence of value in this appeal, the presumption of the valuation by the Board would not have been rebutted by Complainant’s evidence and testimony, since no opinion of the fair market value or any documentation to establish the fair market value of the subject property was presented by Complainant.
ORDER
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 March 9, 2006.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF
_____________________________________
Bruce E. Davis, Chairman
_____________________________________
Sam D. Leake, Commissioner
_____________________________________
Jennifer Tidwell, Commissioner
KAREN KELLOGG, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 05-73010
)
ROBERT RAINES, ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the Morgan County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED. Hearing Officer finds true value in money for the subject property for tax years 2005 and 2006 to be $95,200 ($12,100 – Residential, $83,100 – Agricultural), assessed value of $12,270 ($2,300 – Residential, $9,970 – Agricultural).
Complainant appeared pro se.
Respondent appeared pro se.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer, W. B. Tichenor.
ISSUE
The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2005.
SUMMARY
Complainant
appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Morgan County
Board of Equalization, which reduced the valuation of the subject
property. The Assessor determined an
appraised value of $14,190 (assessed value of $2,700, as residential
property) and $83,080 (assessed value of $9,970, as vacant and unused
agricultural land). The Board set
the assessed values at $9,970 for agricultural land and $2,300 for the
residential portion of the property. A
hearing was conducted on January 10, 2006, at the Morgan County Courthouse,
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainant’s Evidence
Complainant offered into evidence Exhibit A. Exhibit A consisted of a May 10, 2001 Notice of Increased Assessment, a May 15, 2005 Notice of Increased Assessment with a value of $105,300, a May 15, 2005 Notice of Increased Assessment with a value of $97,300, copy of the property record card on the subject, copy of the Board decision letter, photographs of the house and an abandoned structure on the property. Exhibit A was received into evidence.
Complainant had no opinion of value for the subject property. Her only point of contention was that an abandoned and uninhabitable structure on the property that had been valued by the Assessor at $1,170, assessed value of $220 should be given no value. Complainant also raised the issue of no physical inspection under Section 137.115.10, RSMo.
Respondent’s
Evidence
Respondent offered into evidence Exhibit 1 – valuation report. Respondent’s valuation report demonstrated that valuing the land only at fair market value the total value of the subject property, giving no value to any of the improvements would be $95,000 to $100,000 or more. Respondent agreed that no value should necessarily be given to the abandoned structure, but maintained that the overall value of $95,200 was representative of fair market value. Exhibit 1 was received into evidence
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Morgan County Board of Equalization.
2. The subject property is located at 25788 Little Buffalo Road, Stover, Missouri. The property is identified by locator number 17-6.0-23-000-000-15.000. The property consists of 119 acres with an older home and some abandoned and uninhabitable structures. The property is not actively farmed.
3. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2005, to January 1, 2006.
4. Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
Jurisdiction
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.
Board of Equalization Presumption
There is a
presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the
Standard for Valuation
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 (
Market Value
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.
Complainant’s Burden of Proof
In order to
prevail, Complainant 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, 2005. 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 (
Complainant offered no opinion of value for the subject property. Complainant only asserted that the value of $1,170, assessed value of $220, for the structure that is clearly abandoned and uninhabitable should be removed from the property record card. Respondent agreed that this structure has no contributory value. However, this does not mean that the total value of the subject property is overvalued. The only evidence of value for the entire property, which is what is to be valued in this appeal, is that tendered by Respondent, which established a fair market value for the subject supportive of the $95,200 placed on the property by the Board of Equalization.
As to Complainant’s claim of no physical inspection under Section 137.115.10, there is no basis for a reduction in fair market value under the facts of this case. The Assessor increased the assessed value of the subject from 2004 to 2005 by $6,440, from $7,750 to $14,190 an increase of 83% ($6,440/$7,750 = .83). There was no evidence that between the date when the 2003-04 assessment had been made and May 15, 2005, the date of the Assessor’s Notice of Change of Assessed Value that an inspection had taken place. The Property Record Card presented into evidence by the Respondent indicates the last inspection of the property had been 10/17/90.
The provisions of Section 137.115.10 notwithstanding, the Commission is required to find true value in money for the property under appeal. The compliance or non-compliance with the cited statute by an assessor does not allow the Commission to fail to carry out this duty.
ORDER
The assessed
valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization
for
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2005 and 2006 is set at $12,270 ($2,300 – Residential, $9,970 – Agricultural).
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 2000.
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 Morgan 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 January 20, 2006.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF
_____________________________________
W. B. Tichenor
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 20th day of January , 2006, to: Karen Kellogg, 25788 Little Buffalo Road, Stover, MO 65078, Complainant; Marvin Opie, Prosecuting Attorney, Morgan County Justice Center, 211 E. Newton, Versailles, MO 65084, Attorney for Respondent; Robert Raines, Assessor, 100 E. Newton, Versailles, MO 65084; Cathy Daniels, Clerk, 100 E. Newton, Versailles, MO 65084; Clark Hunter, Collector, P.O. Box 315, Versailles, MO 65084.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator