State Tax Commission of Missouri

MEWS ACQUISITION, )

)

Complainant, )

)

v. ) Appeals Number 05-30253 thru 05-30295

)

MICHAEL O’FLAHERTY, )

DIRECTOR OF ASSESSMENT, )

JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, )

)

Respondent. )

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

Decisions of the Jackson County Board of Equalization reducing the assessments made by the Assessor are AFFIRMED. Hearing Officer finds presumption of correct assessment not rebutted. True value in money and assessed values for the subject properties for tax years 2005 and 2006 are set as follows:

Appeal Number	True Value in Money	Assessed Value
05-30253	$ 867,315	$164,789
05-30254	$2,053,365	$386,149
05-30255	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30256	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30257	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30258	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30259	$1,216,830	$231,197
05-30260	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30261	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30262	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30263	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30264	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30265	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30266	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30267	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30268	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30269	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30270	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30271	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30272	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30273	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30274	$ 1,030	$ 196
05-30275	$ 39,602	$ 7,524
05-30276	$ 39,602	$ 7,524
05-30277	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30278	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30279	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30280	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30281	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30282	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30283	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30284	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30285	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30286	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30287	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30288	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30289	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30290	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30291	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30292	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30293	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30294	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
05-30295	$ 25,490	$ 4,843
TOTALS	$5,160,874	$976,570

Complainant represented by Counsel Richard D. Dvorak, Overland Park, Kansas.

Respondent represented by Counsel, William g. Snyder, Senior Deputy County Counselor.

Case submitted on exhibits and written direct testimony filed 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 properties on January 1, 2005.

SUMMARY

Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decisions of the Jackson County Board of Equalization, which reduced the valuations of the subject properties. The values determined by the Assessor and by the Board, and as proposed by Complainant on the Complaint for Review of Assessment were as follows (all properties are classified as residential):

Appeal Number	Assessor TVM - Assessed	Board TVM – Assessed	Complainant TVM - Assessed
05-30253	$1,413,489 - $268,562	$ 867,315 - $164,789	$ 610,000 - $115,900
05-30254	$3,313,130 - $629,494	$2,053,365 - $386,149	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30255	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30256	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30257	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30258	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 12,000 - $ 2,280
05-30259	$1,982,316 - $376,640	$1,216,830 - $231,197	$1,000,000 - $190,000
05-30260	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30261	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30262	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30263	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30264	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30265	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30266	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30267	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30268	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30269	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 0 - $ 0
05-30270	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30271	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30272	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30273	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30274	$ 1,030 - $ 196	$ 1,030 - $ 196	$ 100 - $ 19
05-30275	$ 74,100 - $ 14,079	$ 39,602 - $ 7,524	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30276	$ 74,100 - $ 14,079	$ 39,602 - $ 7,524	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30277	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30278	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30279	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30280	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30281	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30282	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30283	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30284	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30285	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30286	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30287	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30288	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30289	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30290	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30291	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30292	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30293	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30294	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 10,000 - $ 1,900
05-30295	$ 62,016 - $ 11,783	$ 25,490 - $ 4,843	$ 5,000 - $ 950
TOTALS	$9,152,757 - $1,739,021	$5,160,874 - $976,570	$1,985,100 - $377,169

The appeals were submitted upon exhibits and written direct testimony provided by Complainant, Respondent having waived right to cross-examine Complainant’s witness.

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

Complainant’s Evidence

Complainant filed with the Commission the following exhibits and written direct testimony.

Exhibit A – A sheet of paper with the name of John Blatz, an address and phone number (1 page)

Exhibit B – Income Value Worksheet for tax year 2005 for the Linden Hill Apartments (1 page)

Exhibit C – 12 Month Operating Trend for Linden Hill for the year 2004, with Income and Expense Statements (18 pages)

Exhibit D – Rent Roll for Linden Hills Apartments as of 1/1/05 (9 pages) and Rent Roll for The Lindens as of 1/1/04 (1 page)

Exhibit E – Written direct testimony of William E. Miles, III, partner in Mews Acquisition and officer of the property management company for the subject property (3 pages)

Exhibits A through D were received by the Commission on April 2, 2007. Exhibit E was received by the Commission on February 23, 2007.

Mr. Miles opined a value to be placed on the subject properties of $3,663,000. Exhibit E.

Respondent’s Evidence

Respondent did not file any exhibits or written direct testimony.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

Procedural History

2. Appeals were filed with the Commission on August 24, 2005.

3. Appeals were acknowledged on September 7, 2005.

4. Order Setting Discovery and Exchange Schedules was issued on November 30, 2005. Filing and exchange of exhibits and written direct testimony were respectively set for August 3, and September 5, 2006.

5. On March 20, 2006, Complainant filed Motion to Amend Pleading to include the ground of discrimination, with Memorandum in Support. On March 20, 2006, Order Denying Motion for Leave to Amend Pleadings was issued.

6. On August 2, 2006, the parties filed Joint Stipulation to Extend Exchange Schedule. Order Approving Joint Stipulation to Extend Exchange Schedule was issued on August 7, 2006. Filing and exchange of exhibits and written direct testimony were respectively set for October 3, and November 3, 2006.

7. Neither party complied with the Commission order of August 7, 2006. On October 17, 2006, Order to Show Cause was issued, by which Complainant was given until and including November 1, 2006, to show cause why the appeals should not be dismissed.

8. By letter dated October 31, 2006, received by the Commission November 6, 2006, Richard D. Dvorak entered his appearance as attorney for Complainant and requested an additional thirty (30) days to respond to the October 17^th Order to Show Cause.

9. By letter dated November 3, 2006, received by the Commission November 8, 2006, Mr. Dvorak requested an additional thirty (30) days to submit written direct testimony.

10. On November 9, 2006 the Commission received Withdrawal as Counsel of Record for Complainants of John L. Lentell.

11. On November 9, 2006 the Commission issued its Order on Entry of Appearance of New Counsel in which Mr. Dvorak was given until and including December 11, 2006, to respond to the Order to Show Cause and to file exhibits and written direct testimony.

12. On December 15, 2006, the Commission received a letter from Mr. Dvorak with a copy of Certificate of Service of written direct testimony on Respondent, but no filing was made with the Commission. On January 5, 2007, the Commission issued its Order to File Written Direct Testimony and Exhibits, giving Complainant until and including January 22, 2007, to file exhibits and written direct testimony.

13. On January 22, 2007, the Commission received Mr. Dvorak’s Request for a Continuance for sixty (60) days to “provide the written direct testimony.” On January 23, 2007, the Commission issued its Order Ruling on Request for Continuance and granting Complainant until and including February 22, 2007, to file written direct testimony. Complainant’s written direct testimony was received by the Commission on February 23, 2007.

14. On February 26, 2007, the Commission issued its Order upon Filing of Written Direct Testimony giving Respondent until and including March 13, 2007 to advise the Commission in writing if Respondent desired to cross-examine Complainant’s witness. Respondent was further advised that failure to respond to the Commission’s Order would be deemed “a waiver of the right to cross-examine and the case will be submitted for decision and order on the written direct testimony filed by Complainant.” No response was made by Respondent on or before March 13^th.

15. On April 2, 2007, the Commission received from Mr. Dvorak Exhibits A through D, with a request that they be considered “in the assessment of” the property. On April 3, 2007, the Commission issued its Order for Response to late Filing of Exhibits. Respondent was given until and including April 18, 2007, to file any objection to the Commission receiving Exhibit A through D. No response was received from Respondent.

Properties Under Appeal

16. The subject properties are located in Kansas City, Missouri and are known as the Linden Hill Apartments. There are a total of 397 units, consisting of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom apartments, ranging in area from 750 to 1,420 square feet. No other detail description of the properties was provided.

The property addresses and parcel numbers are as follows:

Appeal Number	Address	Parcel Number
05-30253	9644 Lydia	48-630-02-64
05-30254	1424 Mews Dr.	48-630-01-03
05-30255	9628 Shepards Dr.	48-640-04-01
05-30256	9822 Linden Hill	48-630-10-17
05-30257	9830 Linden Hill	48-630-10-15
05-30258	1815 Mews Dr.	48-640-04-03
05-30259	1712 Mews Dr.	48-630-01-04
05-30260	1912 Mews Dr.	48-640-03-04
05-30261	1908 Mews Dr.	48-640-03-03
05-30262	1601 Mews Dr.	48-630-03-03
05-30263	9632 Shepards Dr.	48-640-04-19
05-30264	1916 Mews Dr.	48-640-03-05
05-30265	1927 Mews Dr.	48-640-03-06
05-30266	1923 Mews Dr.	48-640-03-10
05-30267	9829 Linden Hill	48-630-10-20
05-30268	1900 Mews Dr.	48-640-03-01
05-30269	1904 Mews Dr.	48-640-03-02
05-30270	1917 Mews Dr.	48-640-03-11
05-30271	1920 Mews Dr.	48-640-03-06
05-30272	9621 Shepards Dr.	48-640-03-14
05-30273	1924 Mews Dr.	48-640-03-07
05-30274	9520 Lydia	48-630-02-06
05-30275	1701 Mews Dr.	48-630-04-02
05-30276	9633 Shepards Dr.	48-640-03-15
05-30277	1515 Mews Dr.	48-630-03-04
05-30278	1607 Mews Dr.	48-630-03-02
05-30279	1615 Mews Dr.	48-630-03-01
05-30280	9625 Shepards Dr.	48-640-03-13
05-30281	9821 Linden Hill	48-630-10-18
05-30282	9825 Linden Hill	48-630-10-19
05-30283	1507 Mews Dr.	48-630-03-05
05-30284	1501 Mews Dr.	48-630-03-06
05-30285	1415 Mews Dr.	48-630-03-07
05-30286	1407 Mews Dr.	48-630-03-08
05-30287	1401 Mews Dr.	48-630-03-09
05-30288	1707 Mews Dr.	48-630-04-01
05-30289	9826 Linden Hill	48-630-10-16
05-30290	1821 Mews Dr.	48-640-04-02
05-30291	1807 Mews Dr.	48-640-04-04
05-30292	1801 Mews Dr.	48-640-04-05
05-30293	1721 Mews Dr.	48-640-04-06
05-30294	1715 Mews Dr.	48-640-04-07
05-30295	1909 Mews Dr.	48-640-03-12

17. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2005, to January 1, 2006.

18. Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the true value in money for the entire group of properties as of January 1, 2005, to be $3,663,000 as opined by Complainant’s witness or $1,985,100 as set forth in the Complaints for Review of Assessment.

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).

Burden of Proof Not Met

Complainant failed to meet its burden of proof. The opinion of value tendered on behalf of Complainant was not established to have been presented by an individual with sufficient education, training, and experience to appraise real property. Testimony by the witness of having extensive experience, being called on to provide opinions and being a “CPA, etc.” did not qualify Mr. Miles as an expert in the appraisal of real property. Missouri case law has established that an owner may not support an opinion of value by reference to comparable sales unless the owner qualifies as an expert. State ex rel. Missouri Hwy. and Tr. Comm’n v. McDonald’s Corp., 872 S.W.2d 108, 113 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994); State ex rel. Missouri Hwy. and Tr. Comm’n v. Pracht, 801 S.W.2d 90, 94 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990). In like manner, the Hearing Officer finds that an owner or in this case a partner of the taxpaying entity, attempting to support an opinion of value by reliance upon the income approach must be qualified as an expert.

Partner’s Opinion Not Probative

Accepting that as a partner in Mews Acquisition and permitting Mr. Miles to testify in the capacity of an owner still does not provide probative evidence as to fair market value of the properties under appeal. An owner’s testimony, unless founded upon proper elements and a proper foundation does not have probative value. Such an opinion is of insufficient weight to be accorded the status of substantial and persuasive evidence. See, Boten v. Brecklein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 95 (Sup. 1970); Shelby County R-4 School District v. Hermann, 392 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Sup. 1965).

Recognized Approach to Value Not Presented

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 opinion of value offered by Mr. Miles was not established and supported by a recognized approach to value. An income and expense worksheet does not constitute an appraisal of the subject property. The Miles’ worksheet did not provide sufficient supporting data to establish it as a proper income approach to value which could or should be received and relied upon by the Hearing Officer to determine fair market value.

Elements of Proper Income Approach

Commission Rule 12 CSR 30-3.065(1)(B)1 sets out the elements that should be presented in a proper income approach. An income approach should include a complete reconstructed income and expenses statement for the subject property showing economic and market values for each of the following elements: (1) potential gross income; (2) vacancy and collection loss; (3) miscellaneous income; (4) effective gross income; (5) operating expenses; and (6) net operating income. There is no narrative explanation in Exhibit B or in Exhibit E identifying whether the figures used in Exhibit B are the economic values for the subject or market values for comparable apartment complexes. No explanation was presented to establish how the amounts used to arrive at potential gross income, vacancy and credit loss, and operating expenses were derived from Exhibit C or Exhibit D, if in fact they were.

The income and expense data on the subject properties that was presented in Exhibit B was reported to only be for 10 months of 2004 annualized. No income and expense history on the subject complex for years prior to 2004 was presented. No data was provided establishing market income, vacancy, and expenses versus the economic values for the subject.

The monthly rents per unit given in Exhibit B are in a range from $405 to $710. However, Exhibit D – the rent roll – does not list any apartments renting for only $405. The lowest monthly rent shown on the rent roll is $510. The highest monthly rent is $745. The average indicated potential gross monthly rent according to the rent roll would have been approximately $600, not $473 as reported on Exhibit B. Furthermore, the areas of the various units listed on Exhibit B are not supported by the unit areas shown on the rent roll – Exhibit D.

All of the foregoing raises very basic questions as to the reliability of the underlying data used to develop the worksheet. Such questions can only be answered, based on the evidence in this record, by speculation and conjecture. The decision of the Hearing Officer must be based on a recognized approach, properly presented and sufficiently explained. Exhibit B does not meet those criteria.

In addition to the basic income and expense data, required to arrive at net operating income, the following elements are required: (a) a capitalization method and rate, including all calculations to arrive at the rate, a narrative explanation of why the capitalization method is appropriate and an explanation of each element of the selected method; (b) a statement of the applicable tax levy rate; (c) sources of actual and market expenses, income and capitalization rate figures and verification for each; and (d) a final indication of value.

None of this information, other than an opinion of value, is presented in either Complainant’s exhibits or the testimony of Mr. Miles. There is absolutely no information to explain where or how Mr. Miles obtained his capitalization rate. There is no market data in support of the rate utilized. In like manner, the necessary and fundamental information to establish that a correct effective tax rate was utilized is absent from the evidence. Nothing in the record provides the sources relied upon by Mr. Miles as to the expenses used, income and capitalization rate figures and how such information was verified.

A taxpayer does not meet its burden of proof if evidence on any essential element of the case leaves the Hearing Officer “in the nebulous twilight of speculation, conjecture and surmise.” See, Rossman v. G.G.C. Corp. Of Missouri, 596 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Mo. App. 1980). In this instance, the complete absence of market capitalization data leaves the Hearing Officer to pure speculation. The failure to provide an explanation of an appropriate capitalization rate for the valuation of the subject results in nothing but conjecture as to what the capitalization rate in this appeal should be. The absence of evidence as to the actual tax levy means the Hearing Officer can only engage in surmise as to what that levy might be. The omission of testimony as to sources for underlying data and how such was verified results in the Hearing Officer having no basis upon which a determination of fair market value can be properly made under the rules of evidence applicable to this proceeding.

Conclusion

Complainant failed to meet its burden of proof to rebut the presumption of correct assessment and establish true value in money. Accordingly, the valuations as determined by the Board must be affirmed.

Commission Rules and Orders

The Commission issued its Exchange Schedule in these appeals on November 30, 2005. The Exchange Order gave specific instructions as to the filing and exchange of both exhibits and written direct testimony. The Hearing Officer recognizes the change of counsel for Complainant which occurred in these appeals. However, when an attorney enters his appearance in a proceeding before the Commission, it is his responsibility to apprise himself of all existing orders in the proceedings, as well as become familiar with the rules which govern appeals before the Commission.

The Commission granted Counsel for Complainant’s initial request for thirty days to respond to the Commission’s Show Cause Order. The Commission granted Counsel for Complainant’s subsequent request for an additional thirty days to submit written direct testimony. No request was made relative to written direct testimony. The Commission gave Counsel for Complainant until and including December 11, 2006, to file exhibits and written direct testimony. Counsel failed to file exhibits and written direct testimony with the Commission by the deadline.

The Commission sua sponte gave Complainant until and including January 22, 2007, to file exhibits and written direct testimony. In response to the Commission’s action, instead of filing exhibits and written direct testimony as ordered, Counsel for Complainant requested a continuance of sixty days to “provide written direct testimony.” No mention was made of any intention or request to file exhibits. Complainant was given until February 22, 2007, to file written direct testimony, as that was all Complainant had requested continuance to file.

When no response was made by Respondent by March 13, 2007, indicating a desire to cross-examine Complainant’s witness, the Commission should have proceeded to issue a decision in these appeals. Due to an oversight in monitoring the status of these appeals, no decision was prepared before Complainant’s Counsel finally decided he wanted to file some exhibits in these appeals on April 2, 2007. Respondent elected to file no objection to the Commission receiving Exhibits A through D more than two months out of time, therefore, the present Decision and Order is being rendered.

The Commission rule on filing and exchanging of exhibits and written direct testimony (12 CSR 30-3.060) is very specific. Deadlines set in discovery and exchange schedules are expected to be met. In those instances for good cause shown under Commission rule, or when the parties are in genuine settlement discussions and are attempting to settle an appeal short of submitting exhibits and written direct testimony and holding of an evidentiary hearing, continuance, timely filed (five (5) days before the date specified for the event which stands to be affected by the motion), will generally be granted.

In the present appeals, the parties had three (3) months from the filing of the appeals to the issuance of the discovery and exchange schedule. The parties then had over eight (8) months to discuss possible settlement and to prepare exhibits and written direct testimony. It is obvious from the record in these appeals that Respondent never had any intention of filing evidence in these appeals otherwise it would have been timely filed on or before August 3, 2006.

Complainant, irrespective of the change in Counsel, had made no serious effort to prepare to submit evidence and meet the deadlines originally established by the Commission. Even after Mr. Dvorak entered his appearance as Counsel for Complainant, it was not until three months later that written direct testimony was filed with the Commission and it was not until five months later that any exhibits were filed. No showing was made as to why Exhibit C, which was prepared on 2/22/05 could not have been filed on August 3, 2006 as originally ordered. No showing was made as to why Exhibit D which was apparently printed on 7/7/05 could not have been filed on August 3, 2006, as originally ordered. There is no date by which the Hearing Officer can establish when Exhibit B was prepared. However, it is clear there was absolutely nothing which prevented it also having been filed on August 3, 2006, as originally ordered. As to Exhibit A it is irrelevant, the Hearing Officer has no idea why it was filed or what it is supported to establish that addresses the issue of the fair market value of the subject properties.

It is not the prerogative of either party to decide what orders of the Commission it will follow and what orders it will elect to ignore or neglect to follow, whatever the case may be. It is not the prerogative of the parties to elect to simply ignore the deadlines established in Commission Orders. Commission orders on exchange should receive the same degree of respect as an order issued by any court of this state. When handling appeals the Commission acts in a judicial fashion, in this role it is a quasi-judicial body. The Commission expects the attorneys who practice before it to be observant of Commission rules and orders as they handle their appeals.

It has always been the general desire of the Commission to hear appeals on the merits. However, when parties engage in a pattern of either negligence in observing Commission orders and deadlines or simply decide they can ignore the orders and deadlines a sound basis for dismissal of an appeal has been established. Complainant as the moving party bears the burden of presenting evidence to establish its prima facie case for the relief sought. Therefore, to avoid a dismissal for failure to comply with the Commission orders it is incumbent upon a Complainant to see that deadlines are met, or to timely and for good cause seek an extension of deadlines. In order for a Respondent to avoid being barred from presenting evidence, it is critical that Respondent, likewise meet deadlines or timely seek continuance.

ORDER

The assessed valuations for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization for Jackson County for the subject tax day are AFFIRMED.

The assessed values for the subject properties for tax years 2005 and 2006 are set as follows:

Appeal Number	Assessed Values
05-30253	$164,789
05-30254	$386,149
05-30255	$ 4,843
05-30256	$ 4,843
05-30257	$ 4,843
05-30258	$ 4,843
05-30259	$231,197
05-30260	$ 4,843
05-30261	$ 4,843
05-30262	$ 4,843
05-30263	$ 4,843
05-30264	$ 4,843
05-30265	$ 4,843
05-30266	$ 4,843
05-30267	$ 4,843
05-30268	$ 4,843
05-30269	$ 4,843
05-30270	$ 4,843
05-30271	$ 4,843
05-30272	$ 4,843
05-30273	$ 4,843
05-30274	$ 196
05-30275	$ 7,524
05-30276	$ 7,524
05-30277	$ 4,843
05-30278	$ 4,843
05-30279	$ 4,843
05-30280	$ 4,843
05-30281	$ 4,843
05-30282	$ 4,843
05-30283	$ 4,843
05-30284	$ 4,843
05-30285	$ 4,843
05-30286	$ 4,843
05-30287	$ 4,843
05-30288	$ 4,843
05-30289	$ 4,843
05-30290	$ 4,843
05-30291	$ 4,843
05-30292	$ 4,843
05-30293	$ 4,843
05-30294	$ 4,843
05-30295	$ 4,843
TOTAL	$976,570

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 Jackson County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall disburse the protested taxes presently in an escrow account to the taxing jurisdictions.