Mark Lee Branstetter v. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor St Louis County

March 19th, 2015

State Tax Commission of Missouri

Mark Lee Branstetter )
)
              Complainant )
)
v. ) Appeal No. 14-10631
)
JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR )
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
              Respondent )

 

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

Decision of the County Board of Equalization of St. Louis County reducing the assessment made by the Assessor is SET ASIDE.  Complainant did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.   Respondent produced evidence of a value lower than that set by the Board of Equalization.

True value in money for the subject property for tax year 2014 is set at $1,650,000, residential assessed value of $313,500.

Complainant appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared by attorney Priscilla Gunn.

Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu.

ISSUE

Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization, which lowered the valuation of the subject property.  The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2014.  The value as of January 1 of the odd numbered year remains the value as of January 1 of the following even numbered year unless there is new construction and improvement to the property.  Section 137.115.1 RSMo

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. Jurisdiction. 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. Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on 3/11/2015 at the St. Louis County Administration Building, Clayton, Missouri.
  3. Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by map parcel number or locator number 21N330280.  It is further identified as 525 Hickory Lane, St. Louis County, Frontenac Missouri. (Ex. A, C & 1)
  4. Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of a 1 acre tract of land improved by a 2 story, single family, residential home of high quality, built in 2013, with 6,733 square feet of living area according to Respondent.  Complainant contends the home has only 6,447 square feet of living area; however, Complainant did not allow Respondent’s appraiser to physically measure the interior of the residence, but only offered building plans.  Although it was Complainants right to refuse entry to his home, a negative inference can be drawn in favor of Respondent that the County measurement is correct, given the inability of Respondent to verify the building plan measurements.  Amenities include four bedrooms, four full bathrooms and 2 half bathrooms, a four car attached garage, four fireplaces, a patio and more than one porch.  (Ex. 1)
  5. Assessment. The Assessor appraised the property at $1,920,000.  The Board of Equalization reduced the valuation of the property to $1,700,000. (Complainant’s Complaint for Review)
  6. Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant offered into evidence Exhibit A, B and C.  Exhibit A consisted of a Summary Document with purported comparables and a suggestion of value.  Exhibit B consisted of an aerial map.  Exhibit C consisted of real estate information printed off the St. Louis County, Missouri internet site.  Exhibit A was objected to, objection was overruled and the exhibit was received into the evidentiary record to be given such relevance and weight as determined proper.  Exhibit B was received into evidence without objection.  Exhibit C was objected to, objection was overruled and the exhibit was received into the evidentiary record to be given such relevance and weight as determined proper.
  7. Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered into evidence Exhibit 1 – Appraisal Report of appraiser Keeven, with an Effective Date of 1/1/13 and Exhibit 2 which consisted of appraiser Keeven’s cost approach.  Exhibits 1 & 2 were both objected to as being postmarked one day after the due date and based upon the fact the four comparables used by Respondent’s appraiser were after 1/1/13, objection was overruled and the exhibits were both received into the evidentiary record.
  8. Presumption of Correct Assessment Rebutted – Value Established. The evidence presented by Respondent was substantial and persuasive to both rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and to establish the fair market value of the subject property to be $1,650,000, assessed residential value of $313,500. See, Respondent Proves Value, infra.

 

 

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.  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.  Article X, Section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo

Basis of Assessment

            The Constitution mandates that real property and tangible personal property be assessed at its value or such percentage of its value as may be fixed by law for each class and for each subclass.  Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945.   The constitutional mandate is to find the true value in money for the property under appeal.  By statute real and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money. Section 137.115.5, RSMo – residential property at 19% of true value in money.

Presumption In Appeal

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).   This presumption is a rebuttable rather than a conclusive presumption.  It places the burden of going forward with some substantial evidence on the taxpayer – Complainant.  The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the Board’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the property. Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).

Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See, Cupples-Hesse, supra.   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).

Complainant Not Deemed an Expert

Based upon the evidence submitted and the testimony of Complainant, he does not qualify as an expert witness to posit a value on the subject property as of 1/1/13.  Complainant does not possess the knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education , to be deemed an expert for a retrospective appraisal of the subject property.  Exhibit A, which attempts to show purported comparable properties, does not qualify as an appraisal report.  It also fails to make adjustments consistent with generally accepted guidelines for the appraisal of property of the subject’s type.  Exhibit A failed to properly account for the various differences between the subject and each purported comparable.

Complainants’ Burden of Proof

In order to prevail, Complainants 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, 2013.  Hermel, supra.   There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. The taxpayer in a Commission appeal still bears the burden of proof.  The taxpayer is the moving party seeking affirmative relief.   Therefore, the Complainant bears the burden of proving the vital elements of the case, i.e., the assessment was “unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary or capricious.”  See, 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); Industrial Development Authority of Kansas City v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 804 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo. App. 1991).  A valuation which does not reflect the fair market value (true value in money) of the property under appeal is an unlawful, unfair and improper assessment.

Owner’s Opinion of Value

The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.   Rigali v. Kensington Place Homeowners’ Ass’n, 103 S.W.3d 839, 846 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); 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.  Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, (Mo. App. E.D., March 25, 2008); Carmel Energy, Inc. v. Fritter, 827 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992); State, ex rel. Missouri Hwy & Transp. Com’n v. Pracht, 801 S.W.2d 90, 94 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990); Shelby County R-4 School District v. Hermann, 392 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Sup. 1965).   “Where the basis for a test as to the reliability of the testimony is not supported by a statement of facts on which it is based, or the basis of fact does not appear to be sufficient, the testimony should be rejected.”  Carmel Energy at 783.  A taxpayer does not meet his burden if evidence on any essential element of his case leaves the Commission “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 the present appeal, Complainant’s evidence leaves the Commission “in the nebulous twilight of speculation, conjecture and surmise.”  Id.

Board Presumption and Computer-Assisted Presumption

            There exists a presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.  As will be addressed below (See, Respondent’s Burden of Proof, infra), there exists by statutory mandate a presumption that the Assessor’s original valuation was made by a computer, computer-assisted method or a computer program – the computer-assisted presumption.  These two presumptions operate with regard to the parties in different ways.  The Board presumption operates in every case to require the taxpayer to present evidence to rebut it.  If Respondent is seeking to prove a value different than that set by the Board, then it also would be applicable to the Respondent.  The computer-assisted presumption only comes into play if the Board of Equalization lowered the value of the Assessor and Respondent is seeking to sustain the original assessment and it has not been shown that the Assessor’s valuation was not the result of a computer assisted method.  In the present appeal, Respondent’s evidence sought to further lower the true market value assigned to the subject property, below that set by the Board of Equalization.

Respondent’s Burden of Proof

Respondent, when advocating a value different from that determined by the original valuation or a valuation made by the Board of Equalization, must meet the same burden of proof to present substantial and persuasive evidence of the value advocated as required of the Complainant under the principles established by case law. Hermel, Cupples-Hesse, Brooks, 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)  True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use.  Daly v. P. D. George Company, et al, 77 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Mo. App E.D. 2002), citing, Equitable Life Assurance Society v. STC, 852 S.W.2d 376, 380 (Mo. App. 1993); citing, Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. STC, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973).

It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, supra.

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 are 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 both acting in what they
  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.

 

Hearsay and Relevance

 

In evidentiary law there are two important and fundamental concepts relating to the admissibility of evidence, whether in testimonial or documentary form.  Those two principles are hearsay and relevance.  Either can be sufficient in various circumstances to exclude testimony or documents from coming into the evidentiary record.

Investigation by Hearing Officer

In order to investigate appeals filed with the Commission, the Hearing Officer may inquire of the owner of the property or of any other party to the appeal regarding any matter or issue relevant to the valuation, subclassification or assessment of the property.  The Hearing Officer’s decision regarding the assessment or valuation of the property may be based solely upon his inquiry and any evidence presented by the parties, or based solely upon evidence presented by the parties. Section 138.430.2, RSMo.  The Hearing Officer during the evidentiary hearing made inquiry of Complainant and Respondent’s appraiser.

Weight to be Given Evidence

            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 (Mo. banc 1977); St. Louis County v. STC, 515 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. 1974); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968).

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 who testify on the issue of reasonable value, but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony and accept it in part or reject it in part.  St. Louis County v. Boatmen’s Trust Co., 857 S.W.2d 453, 457 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Vincent by Vincent v. Johnson, 833 S.W.2d 859, 865 (Mo. 1992); Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Mo. banc 1981).

Methods of Valuation

Proper methods of valuation and assessment of property are delegated to the Commission.  It is within the purview of the Hearing Officer to determine the method of valuation to be adopted in a given case.   See, Nance v. STC, 18 S.W.3d 611, at 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, supra;  Xerox Corp. v. STC, 529 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1975).  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).

          Respondent Proves Value

Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a fair market value as of January 1, 2013, to be $1,650,000 for the subject property.  Respondent’s appraiser developed an opinion of value relying upon an established and recognized approach for the valuation of real property, the sales comparison or market approach.  The sales comparison approach is generally recognized to be the most reliable methodology to be utilized in the valuation of single-family residences.  The adjustments made by the appraiser were consistent with generally accepted guidelines for the appraisal of property of the subject’s type.  The adjustments properly accounted for the various differences between the subject and each comparable.

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and lowered  by the Board of Equalization for  St. Louis County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2014 is set at $313,500.

Application for Review

A party may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service for this Decision.  The application shall contain specific facts or law as grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.  Said application must be in writing addressed to the State Tax Commission of Missouri, P.O. Box 146, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146, and a copy of said application must be sent to each person at the address listed below in the certificate of service.

            Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the application for review is based will result in summary denial. Section 138.432, RSMo

Disputed Taxes

The Collector of St. Louis County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall continue to hold the disputed taxes pending the possible filing of an Application for Review, unless said taxes have been disbursed pursuant to a court order under the provisions of Section 139.031.8, RSMo.

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 19, 2015.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

John J. Treu

Senior Hearing Officer

 

Delivery or Notice was made via mail, email, fax, or personally on March 19, 2015 to the following Individuals of this Decision/Order/Holding

Mark Branstetter, Complainant, mlbranstetter@sbcglobal.net

Paula Lemerman, Associate County Counsel, Attorney for Respondent, PLemerman@stlouisco.com

Priscilla Gunn, PGunn@stlouisco.com

Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, syoutzy@stlouisco.com

Mark Devore, Collector, MDevore@stlouisco.com

 

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator

 

Contact Information for State Tax Commission:

Missouri State Tax Commission

301 W. High Street, Room 840

P.O. Box 146

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146

573-751-2414

573-751-1341 Fax