State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

DONALD PATTERSON,                               )

)

Complainant,                )

)

v.                                                         )           Appeal Number 05-32515

)                        

SCOTT SHIPMAN, ASSESSOR,                  )

ST. CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI,         )

)

 Respondent.                )

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Decision of the St. Charles County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor, AFFIRMED, true value in money for the subject property for tax years 2005 and 2006 set at $90,000, assessed value of $17,100.

Complainant appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared by Counsel, Charissa Mayes, Assistant County Counselor.

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 St. Charles County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.  The Assessor determined an appraised value of $90,000 (assessed value of $17,100, as residential property).  Complainant proposed a value of $30,000 in the Complaint for Review of assessment by $72,000 at hearing.  A hearing was conducted on February 28, 2005, at the St. Charles County Administration Building, St. Charles, Missouri.

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

Complainant’s Evidence

Complainant testified in his own behalf.  He stated his opinion of fair market value was $72,000.  This was based on the owner’s prepared statement set out in Exhibit A.  It was the position of the taxpayer that sale value does not reflect the market value as all of the lots in the subdivision were owned by a builder who has built homes on them, although no home has been built on the Complainant’s lot.  Exhibit A was received into evidence.  Complainant’s Exhibit B, a letter dated October 10, 2005, to Complainant from Gary L. Casper was excluded from evidence upon objection on the grounds of hearsay and relevancy.

Respondent’s Evidence

Respondent offered into evidence the Appraisal Report (Exhibit 1) of Mr. Steven D. Riney, Supervisor of Residential Property for St. Charles County.  Mr. Riney testified as to his appraisal of the subject property.  Exhibit 1 was received into evidence.  Mr. Riney arrived at an opinion of value for the subject property of $94,000 based upon a sales comparison approach to value.  In performing his sales comparison analysis, the appraiser relied upon the sales of five properties (lots on the subject street) which he deemed to be comparable to the subject property and the sale of the subject.

No adjustments to the five lot sales were required as there was no variance in location, site, topography, or utilities which would warrant any adjustments.  The lots ranged in size from .29 of an acre (the size of the subject) to .39 of an acre.  The sales prices for the lots ranged from $89,000 to $114,000 or a per square foot value range from $5.77 to $7.48 (subject $7.44).  The sales dates were: 10/04 (subject), 6/05, 6/05, 11/04, 4/05 and 4/04 respectively.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2.         The subject property is located at 632 Dunmore Place, Cottleville, Missouri.  The property is identified by locator number 3-0112-9629-00-8.  The property consists of a .29 of an acre lot.  It was purchased by Complainant in October 2004, for $94,000

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 Assessor and the Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2005, to be $72,000, as proposed.

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 three (3) blocks of the subject.  Each sale property sold at a time relevant to the tax date of January 1, 2005.  The sale properties were similar to the subject in relevant characteristics for vacant lots.  Exhibit 1.  No adjustments to the sales prices were warranted for this appraisal problem.

6.         Respondent’s evidence met the standard of clear and convincing evidence to substantiate the presumption of correct assessment by the Assessor and 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 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).


Presumption on Assessor’s Value

The  Supreme Court of Missouri has held, “A tax assessor’s valuation is presumed correct.”  Donna Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., SC86181, 3/01/2005.   Citing to Hermel, supra; and Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).

Rebutting of Presumption of Correct Assessment

            The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the assessor’s or Board’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the property.  Snider, Hermel & Cupples Hesse, supra.

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 (Mo. banc 1993).  It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.  Hermel, supra.

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.  Exhibit 1, p. 4.

Opinion Testimony by Experts

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).

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 (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).

Owner’s Opinion of Value

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). 

Methods of Valuation

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).


DECISION

The owner’s opinion of fair market value may always be given in an appeal before the Commission.  However, such opinion of value without substantial and persuasive evidence to support that opinion possesses no probative weight or benefit on the issue of fair market value.  In the present case, Mr. Patterson’s opinion was not based upon a recognized appraisal methodology.  There was no evidence presented which demonstrated that at a time relevant to the tax date of January 1, 2005, lots in the subject subdivision were selling for $72,000.

Mr. Patterson totally ignored the price he paid for the subject lot.  Complainant’s opinion of value is not based upon proper elements or foundation and accordingly has no probative benefit in this appeal.


Evidence of the actual sales price of property is admissible to establish value at the time of an assessment, provided that such evidence involves a voluntary purchase not too remote in time.  The actual sale price is a method that may be considered for estimating true value.  The actual sales price, between a willing seller who is not obligated to sell and a willing buyer who is not compelled to buy, establishes an outer limit on the value of real property. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. STC, 854 S.W.2d 526 (App. E.D. 1993).  In the present case, the actual sales price less than three months prior to the valuation date is compelling evidence to establish fair market value.  This is further supported by the additional five sales presented by Mr. Riney.

In the absence of substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a value of $72,000 as proposed by the taxpayer, the valuation determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board is presumed correct.  The Riney appraisal provided clear and convincing evidence to substantiate the Assessor and Board presumptions.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for St. Charles County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2005 and 2006 is set at $17,100.

Complainant 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 St. Charles 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 March 10, 2006.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

 

_____________________________________

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 10th day of  March, 2006, to:  Donald Patterson, 11802 Relay Drive, Bridgeton, MO 63044, Complainant; Charissa Mayes, Assistant County Counselor, 100 North Third Street, Room 216, St. Charles, MO 63301, Attorney for Respondent; Scott Shipman, Assessor, 201 North Second, Room 247, St. Charles, MO 63301-2870; Amy Gann, Registrar, 100 North Third Street, Suite 206, St. Charles, MO 63301; Barbara Walker, Collector, 201 North Second Street, Room 134, St. Charles, MO 63301.

 

 

___________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator