State Tax Commission of Missouri
PAMELA BARMASH, )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 06-10018
)
PHILIP MUEHLHEAUSLER, ASSESSOR, )
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED. Hearing Officer finds presumptions of correct assessment not rebutted. Respondent’s evidence clear and convincing to sustain valuation presumed to have been set by computer assisted method. True value in money for the subject property for tax year 2006 is set at $293,800, assessed value of $55,820.
Complainant appeared pro se.
Respondent appeared by Counsel, Paula J. Lemerman, Associate County Counselor.
Case heard by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor; Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan present for hearing. Case decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.
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. Louis County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $293,800, assessed value of $55,820, as residential property. Complainant proposed a value of $253,000, assessed value of $48,070. A hearing was conducted on January 23, 2007, at the St. Louis County Government Center, Clayton, Missouri. Pursuant to Section 138.431.4, RSMo, the appeal has been transferred to Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan for rendering of Decision and Order.
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 her own behalf. She offered her opinion of value for the subject property as of January 1, 2005, to be $253, 000. She believed her property was in good condition. She testified that she had to install a sump pump and a french drain to address water in her basement. The installation of the pump caused damage to her walls and floors. She also testified that the concrete around her property was not in good condition. Ms. Barmash offered the following exhibits into evidence:
Exhibit A – Real Estate Tax History on subject property.
Exhibit B- Real Estate Tax History on property located at 7101 Cornell Avenue.
Exhibit C – Real Estate Tax History on property located at 7053 Cornell Avenue.
Complainant testified that the properties in Exhibits B and C were adjacent to her property and were comparable to her property except the adjacent properties were in very good condition. The property of Exhibit C was sold in February 2005 for $335,000.
All Exhibits were received into evidence.
Respondent’s Evidence
Respondent placed into evidence the testimony of Mr. Barton G. Lane, appraiser for St. Louis County. The appraiser testified as to his appraisal of the subject property. The Appraisal Report, Exhibit 1, of Mr. Lane was received into evidence. Mr. Lane arrived at an opinion of value for the subject property of $332, 500 based upon a sales comparison approach to value. In performing his sales comparison analysis, the appraiser relied upon the sales of three properties which he deemed to be comparable to the subject property.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization.
2. The subject property is located at 7055 Cornell Avenue, University City, Missouri. The property is identified by locator number 18J540524. The property consists of .13 of an acre lot improved by a two-story brick, single-family home structure of very good quality construction. The structure was built in 1935. The residence has a total of 8 rooms, which includes 4 bedrooms, 2 full baths, 2 half baths and contains 2,132 square feet of living area. The full basement is approximately 930 square feet and has 150 square feet of finished area. There is no garage. There was no listing or sale of the property noted within three years prior to the tax date of January 1, 2005.
3. There was evidence of repairs to the home in 2005 to address water in the basement. The Complainant testified that a sump pump and french drain were installed but the flooring and wall damage from the installation had not been corrected.
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 $253,000.
5. Respondent’s evidence was clear, convincing and cogent to establish the fair market value to be $293,800 as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board.
6. 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 two 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 style, age, site and other amenities of comparability. The living area in the comparables was within 100 square feet of the subject property although the room count differed. Two of the comparables had garages, the subject property did not have a garage. Exhibit 1. pp.14-16.
7. The appraiser made various adjustments to the comparable properties for differences which existed between the subject and each comparable. All adjustments appear to be appropriate to bring the comparables in line with the subject for purposes of the appraisal problem.
8. The adjusted sales prices for the comparables calculated to $363,000, $327,800 and $317, 500, respectively. The appraiser concluded on a $332,500 value which calculated to a value per square foot of $155.96 compared with the sales prices per square foot of living area for the comparables of $192.22, $180.20, and $149.43.
9. Respondent’s appraisal was accepted only to sustain the original assessment made by the Assessor and sustained by the Board and not for the purpose of raising the assessment above that value.
CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND DECISION
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.
Presumptions in Appeals
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 (
The Supreme Court
of Missouri has held, “A tax assessor’s valuation is presumed correct.” Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri
Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341 (
The
presumptions of correct assessment are 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 (
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. 2.
Respondent’s
Burden of Proof
The Respondent has imposed upon him by the provisions of Section 137.115.1, RSMo, the burden of proof to present clear, convincing and cogent evidence to sustain a valuation on residential property which is made by a computer, computer-assisted method or a computer program. There is a presumption in this appeal that the original valuation, which was sustained by the Board of Equalization, was made by a computer, computer-assisted method or a computer program. There was no evidence to rebut the presumption, therefore, in order to sustain the valuation of the subject property at $55,820, appraised value, Respondent’s evidence must come within the guidelines established by the legislature and must clearly and convincingly persuade the Hearing Officer as to the value sought to be sustained.
The statutory guidelines for evidence to meet the standard of clear, convincing and cogent include the following:
(1) The findings of the assessor based on an appraisal of the property by generally accepted appraisal techniques; and
(2) The purchase prices from sales of at least three comparable properties and the address or location thereof. As used in this paragraph, the word comparable means that:
(a) Such sale was closed at a date relevant to the property valuation; and
(b) Such properties are not more than one mile from the site of the disputed property, except where no similar properties exist within one mile of the disputed property, the nearest comparable property shall be used. Such property shall be within five hundred square feet in size of the disputed property, and resemble the disputed property in age, floor plan, number of rooms, and other relevant characteristics.
Section 137.115.1(1) & (2).
Clear, cogent and
convincing evidence is that evidence which clearly convinces the trier of fact
of the affirmative proposition to be proved.
It does not mean that there may not be contrary evidence. Grissum v. Reesman, 505 S.W.2d 81, 85,
86 (Mo. Div. 2, 1974). The quality of
proof, to be clear and convincing must be more than a mere preponderance but
does not require beyond a reasonable doubt.
30 AmJur2d. 345-346, Evidence section 1167. “For evidence to be clear and convincing, it
must instantly tilt the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the
evidence in opposition and the fact finder’s mind is left with an abiding
conviction that the evidence is true.” Matter
of O’Brien, 600 S.W.2d 695, 697 (
Respondent’s appraisal constitutes clear and convincing evidence in this appeal that the true value in money of the subject property as of January 1, 2005 was at least $293,800. The appraisal was developed relying on sound market data and a recognized approach to value. Missouri courts have approved the comparable sales or market approach, the cost approach 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). The sales comparison approach is generally the best suited approach for the appraisal of owner occupied residences. When there is adequate and sound market data, the sales comparison approach provides the best evidence of value for an appraisal problem of this nature.
In this case, there is no evidence on the record which contradicts or even brings into question the conclusion of value reached by Mr. Lane’s appraisal. The data is sound and the adjustments are appropriate, therefore, the conclusion of value is well supported. Accordingly, Respondent has established by clear and convincing evidence a fair market value of at least $293,800.
Evidence of Increase in Value
In any case in St. Louis County where the assessor presents evidence which indicates a valuation higher than the value finally determined by the assessor or the value determined by the board of equalization, whichever is higher, for that assessment period, such evidence will only be received for the purpose of sustaining the assessor’s or board’s valuation, and not for increasing the valuation of the property under appeal. Section 138.060, RSMo; 12 CSR 30-3.075.
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 (
The Complainant
has failed to meet her burden of proof in the present appeal. 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
Comparing the Assessor’s appraised value for the subject property to the Assessor’s appraised values for properties located on the East and West of the subject is not an accepted method for arriving at fair market value.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2006 is set at $293,800.
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 St. Louis 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 30, 2007.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
_____________________________________
Maureen Monaghan
Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 30th of January, 2007, to: Pamela Barmash, 7055 Cornell Avenue, University City, MO 63130, Complainant; Paula Lemerman, Associate County Counselor, Attorney for Respondent; Philip Muehlheausler, Assessor, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105; John Friganza, Collector, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105.
____________________________
Barbara Heller, Legal Coordinator