6605 Kingsbury LLC v. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County

May 7th, 2021

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

6605 KINGSBURY LLC, et al., )
Complainants, ) Appeal Nos. 19-10124, et al.
) Parcel/Locater Nos. (Appendix attached)
v. )
)
JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR, )
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI )
Respondent. )
)

 

DECISION AND ORDER

          6605 Kingsbury LLC, and 11 other property owners (Complainants), appeal the St. Louis County Board of Equalization’s (BOE) decisions determining the true value in money (TVM) of the subject residential properties as of January 1, 2019. Complainants did not produce substantial and persuasive evidence of overvaluation. The BOE decisions are affirmed.[1]

Complainants were represented by counsel Brian Mueller. Respondent was represented by counsel Steven Robson. The evidentiary hearing was conducted via WebEx on December 29, 2020.

BACKGROUND

This matter involves 12 appeals consolidated for administrative efficiency. The sole claim in each appeal is overvaluation.

A second amended scheduling order dated November 4, 2020, established a discovery and exchange schedule requiring the parties to exchange exhibits and file them with the STC. In 11 of the 12 appeals, Complainants exchanged and filed an exhibit specific to the subject property for that appeal.

Complainants also submitted “common exhibits” consisting of Respondent’s discovery responses and investor surveys and market reports. The common exhibits include no evidence of value specific to any subject property.

Complainants’ Property-Specific Exhibits

In each of the 11 appeals with property-specific exhibits, Complainants filed exhibits denominated as Exhibit SSSSSSSS (175), Exhibit TTTTTTT (176), and Exhibit UUUUUUU (177). In each appeal, these exhibits include essentially the same type of information.

Exhibit SSSSSSS (175) consists of a Google Maps street view photograph and an “Owner’s Opinion of Value” page.[2] Most photographs show either the exterior front or back of several buildings without identifying the subject property.[3] The “image capture” date on the photographs range from 2012 through 2019.[4] There is no other evidence showing these photographs depict the condition of the subject property and surrounding area as of January 1, 2019.

The Owner’s Opinion of Value page lists the BOE value, the owner’s proposed value, and includes three charts. The first chart notes data pertinent to the subject property, including its address, lot size, building size and class, and the TVM assigned by Respondent. The second chart is denominated as the “County Income Method” and lists the property, income, expense, and capitalization rate data Respondent purportedly utilized to estimate the TVM of the subject property. The third chart is denominated as the “Fee Simple Method Based on Co-Star Reports and Comps.” This chart lists the owner’s purported income and expense assumptions and the capitalization rate utilized to calculate the proposed value.

Each Exhibit TTTTTTT (176) consists of a CoStar Realty Information, Inc., report for the subject property, a “Comps” chart listing comparable sales, and a copyrighted printout licensed to “Lexstop Law Firm, LLC” listing additional comparable sales.[5] Each CoStar report is entitled “Property Analytics” and lists vacancy, market expenses, market rent, and a “market cap rate” for the subject property’s submarket. There is no explanation as to whether the “market cap rate” includes or omits the effective ad valorem tax rate. The exhibits also include two pages of printouts from Realtor.com regarding property information for 6261 Clemens Avenue.

The “Comps” chart lists the property address, zip code, property type, land and building areas, sale price, sale date, and property grade for purported comparable sales. None of the comparable sales charts include market-based adjustments accounting for property differences. The values are not calculated, averaged, or otherwise reconciled. None of the charts identify whether the sales were an arms-length transaction.

The Lexstop Law Firm printouts list of additional comparable sales. The printouts include a photograph of the property, the buyer’s and seller’s identity, the sale date, the sale price, and other property data. Like the comparable sales charts, no adjustments are made to account for property differences. Some of the printouts include handwritten notes and commentary with no attribution as to the author.

In 10 of the 11 appeals with property-specific exhibits, Exhibit UUUUUUU (177) is a copy of an April 17, 2020, email from Respondent’s former counsel to Complainants’ counsel regarding settlement discussions in unrelated appeals from commercial property tax assessments.[6] There is no evidence tying the email in Exhibit UUUUUUU (177) to the overvaluation claims in the underlying appeals from residential property tax assessments.

In two appeals, Complainants filed additional property-specific exhibits. In appeal 19-10158, Exhibit UUUUUUU (177) is a “Multi Family Capital Markets Report” for “Mid County Saint Louis – MO.” Exhibit UUUUUUUU (178) is a “Multi Family Submarket Report” for “Mid County Saint Louis – MO.” Both reports were prepared by Complainants’ counsel.

Finally, in appeal 19-10267, Complainants filed an exhibit marked as UUUUUUUU (178) consisting of a CoStar report regarding multi-family properties in the 63123 zip code. Appeal 19-10267 also includes an exhibit marked “VVVVVVVV (179),” which is a copy of the email from Respondent’s former counsel to Complainants’ counsel regarding settlement discussions in unrelated appeals from commercial property tax assessments.[7]

Complainants’ Common Exhibits

Complainants filed over 100 “common exhibits.” These exhibits include Respondent’s discovery responses, investor surveys and research reports detailing current and projected market conditions and/or capitalization rates for various types of properties on a national, regional, or local level.

Complainants’ counsel also filed an affidavit asserting he observed the BOE hearings for the subject properties. Counsel asserts the BOE files regarding the subject property include property record cards and other information that was not presented to the BOE during hearings regarding the subject properties.

Evidentiary Hearing

At the evidentiary hearing, Complainants’ counsel explained the three property-specific exhibits in appeal 19-10124. The three property-specific exhibits in appeal 19-10124 are Exhibit SSSSSSSS (175), Exhibit TTTTTTT (176), and Exhibit UUUUUUU (177). The subject property in appeal 19-10124 is located at 6605 Kingsbury Boulevard in University City, Missouri.

Exhibit SSSSSSS (175) consists of a single Google Maps photograph from July 2015 showing the exterior of a property located at 500 Melville in University City, Missouri, and an “Owner’s Opinion of Value” page regarding the subject property located at 6605 Kingsbury Boulevard.[8] The Owner’s Opinion of Value page indicates the BOE valued the subject property at $822,800 and asserts the owner’s opinion of value is $619,821. The lower value estimate is based on a reduced NOI and higher capitalization rate than that purportedly utilized by Respondent. Complainants’ counsel stated the NOI estimates were drawn from CoStar reports.

Exhibit TTTTTTT (175) consist of a CoStar report for 6601 Kingsbury Boulevard, a chart of “comps” listing comparable sales, and a copyrighted printout licensed to “Lexstop Law Firm, LLC” listing additional comparable sales. Exhibit UUUUUUU (177) is a copy of an April 17, 2020, email from Respondent’s former counsel to Complainants’ counsel regarding settlement discussions in unrelated appeals from commercial property tax assessments.

Complainant’s counsel moved for the admission of the exhibits in appeal 19-10124. Complainants’ counsel confirmed that like appeal 19-10124, the remaining property-specific exhibits consisted of essentially the same types of evidence. The parties consented to utilizing appeal 19-10124 as the template for admitting into evidence the property-specific exhibits in the remaining appeals. Based on this understanding, Complainants’ counsel moved to introduce the property-specific exhibits in the remaining appeals into evidence. Respondent objected on grounds that Complainant’s counsel was testifying improperly and that there was no witness testimony laying a foundation for the exhibits. Both objections were taken with the case.

Respondent’s exhibits and evidence consisted solely of the BOE decisions for each subject property. Complainants objected on grounds the BOE decision are inadmissible hearsay and that the BOE decisions should not be viewed as presumptively correct.

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. The subject properties are multi-family residential properties located in St. Louis County. Complainants own the subject properties.
  2. In appeal 19-10300, Complainant submitted no exhibit or any other evidence of value specific to the subject property. Complainant relies exclusively on the common exhibits.
  3. The common exhibits consist of Respondent’s discovery responses and investor surveys and research reports detailing current and projected market conditions and/or capitalization rates for various types of commercial properties on a national, regional, or local level.
  4. In the remaining appeals, Complainants filed property-specific exhibits purporting to offer Complainants’ opinions of value. All such opinions of value are less than the TVM determined by the BOE. No Complainant or any other witness testified at the hearing regarding an opinion of value or any other matter.
  5. Complainants’ purported opinions of value are based on the sales comparison approach and the income approach. Complainants did not introduce any witness testimony regarding either approach to value or any other matter.
  6. For the sales comparison approach, Complainants rely on comparable sales charts listing the property address, zip code, property type, land and building areas, sale price, sale date, and property grade for purported comparable sales.
  7. Complainants introduced no evidence regarding accuracy of any of the data in the comparable sales charts. None of the comparable sales charts include market-based adjustments accounting for property differences.
  8. For the income approach, Complainants assert a lower net operating income (NOI) than that purportedly assumed by Respondent. A lower NOI reduces the estimated TVM.
  9. Complainants’ lower NOI estimates are based on the Owner’s Opinion of Value charts and CoStar reports. Complainants introduced no evidence verifying the accuracy of any NOI estimates.
  10. Some Complainants assert both a lower NOI and a higher capitalization rate. A higher capitalization rate reduces the estimated TVM.
  11. Complainants’ proposed capitalization rates are based on CoStar reports. Complainants did not derive capitalization rates from sales of comparable properties, a band of investment analysis, or a debt ratio coverage analysis. Complainants introduced no evidence verifying the accuracy of any of their capitalization rate estimates.
  12. The TVM of each subject property is the value determined by the BOE. The subject properties and corresponding BOE values are identified in the attached appendix. The appendix is incorporated into the findings of fact.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

  1. Assessment and Valuation. Residential real property is assessed at 19% of its TVM as of January 1 of each odd-numbered year. Section 137.115.5(1)(a). “True value in money is the fair market value of the property on the valuation date, and is a function of its highest and best use, which is the use of the property which will produce the greatest return in the reasonably near future.” Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Mo. Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341, 346 (Mo. banc 2005) (internal quotation omitted). The fair market value is “the price which the property would bring from a willing buyer when offered for sale by a willing seller.” Mo. Baptist Children’s Home v. State Tax Comm’n, 867 S.W.2d 510, 512 (Mo. banc 1993). “Determining the true value in money is an issue of fact for the STC.”
    Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008).

“For purposes of levying property taxes, the value of real property is typically determined using one or more of three generally accepted approaches.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 346. The three generally accepted approaches are the cost approach, the income approach, and the comparable sales approach. Id. at 346-48; see also St. Louis Cty. v. Sec. Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977). The STC has wide discretion in selecting the appropriate valuation method but “cannot base its decision on opinion evidence that fails to consider information that should have been considered under a particular valuation approach.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 348.

  1. Evidence. The hearing officer is the finder of fact and determines the credibility and weight of the evidence.   Kelly v. Mo. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., Family Support Div., 456 S.W.3d 107, 111 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015). 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.” Section 138.430.2. “Although technical rules of evidence are not controlling in administrative hearings, fundamental rules of evidence are applicable.” Mo. Church of Scientology v. State Tax Comm’n, 560 S.W.2d 837, 839 (Mo. banc 1977).

Prior to the hearing, Complainants filed written objections to Respondent’s exhibits. First, Complainants asserted Respondents’ exhibits are inadmissible because Respondent failed to sequentially number the exhibits. While the scheduling order requested that the parties include the appeal number on the face of each exhibit, no Commission regulation or other authority provides that the failure to sequentially number exhibits renders them inadmissible. In any event, Respondent clearly marked and organized the exhibits for the record. The objection is overruled.

Second, Complainants asserted the BOE decisions are admissible only if Respondent establishes the authenticity and chain of custody of all written evidence presented to the BOE. Complainants cite no authority for this argument. The objection is overruled.

Finally, Complainants asserted the BOE decisions are inadmissible “if they are intended to prove that the Board of Equalization’s decision should be entitled to a presumption of correctness.” Complainants cite no case law supporting this argument, while overlooking nearly a century of case law holding that BOE decisions are presumptively correct.[9] The objection is overruled.

Respondent objected to Complainants’ exhibits on grounds that counsel was improperly testifying and that no witness laid a foundation for any exhibit. Both objections were taken with the case. It is unnecessary to resolve Respondent’s objections to the admissibility of Complainants’ exhibits. Even assuming Complainants’ exhibits are admissible, the exhibits lack sufficient probative value to satisfy Complainants’ burden of proof.

  1. Complainants’ Burden of Proof. The taxpayer bears the burden of proof and must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was misclassified or overvalued.  Westwood P’ship v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152, 161 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003).  The BOE’s valuation is presumptively correct. Tibbs v. Poplar Bluff Assocs. I, L.P., 599 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020). The “taxpayer may rebut this presumption by presenting substantial and persuasive evidence that the valuation is erroneous.” Id. (internal quotation omitted).

“Substantial evidence is that evidence which, if true, has probative force upon the issues, and from which the trier of fact can reasonably decide the case on the fact issues.” Savage, 722 S.W.2d at 77 (internal quotation omitted). Evidence is persuasive when it has “sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact.” Daly v. P.D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645, 651 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); see also White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298, 305 (Mo. banc 2010) (noting the burden of persuasion is the “party’s duty to convince the fact-finder to view the facts in a way that favors that party”). To prevail on their overvaluation claims, Complainants must produce substantial and persuasive evidence rebutting the the BOE’s presumptively correct value and proving “the value that should have been placed on the property.” Tibbs, 599 S.W.3d at 7.

  1. Complainants Did Not Prove Overvaluation. Complainants failed to produce substantial and persuasive evidence of overvaluation. In the appeal 19-10300, in which no property-specific exhibit was introduced, there is no substantial or persuasive evidence of overvaluation. The lack of property-specific evidence requires affirmance of the BOE’s presumptively correct values.[10]

The remaining 11 appeals with property-specific exhibits fare no better.   Complainants offered no witness testimony to authenticate or lay a foundation for any exhibits. Complainants’ counsel asserted the exhibits are accurate, but “[b]are assertions by counsel do not prove themselves and are not evidence of the facts presented.” Andersen v. Osmon, 217 S.W.3d 375, 381 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007); see also Schubert v. Trailmobile Trailer, L.L.C., 111 S.W.3d 897, 906 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003) (noting that counsel’s statements are not a substitute for proof). Even if these foundational deficiencies are downplayed, Complainants’ exhibits do not establish the necessary facts or utilize the appropriate methodology to persuasively estimate value according to the comparable sales approach or the income approach.

Comparable Sales Approach

At the evidentiary hearing, Complainants asserted the subject properties should be valued by the comparable sales approach. “The comparable sales approach uses prices paid for similar properties in arms-length transactions and adjusts those prices to account for differences between the properties.”  Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 348. “Comparable sales consist of evidence of sales reasonably related in time and distance and involve land comparable in character.” Id. at 348. Unless the comparable properties are identical to the subject property, adjustments are required. Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate (14th ed. 2013) 388. Consequently, absent proof the comparable properties are identical to the subject property, the STC “cannot base its decision on opinion evidence that fails to consider” the adjustments that “should have been considered” in applying the comparable sales approach. Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 348; see also In re Marriage of Patrick, 201 S.W.3d 591, 598 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (holding the circuit court properly disregarded a “comparative market analysis” that failed to make monetary adjustments to account for property differences because the analysis “did not meet the requirements of the comparable sale approach method for valuation of real estate”).

Complainants’ sales comparison approach is based on comparable sales charts listing the property location, sale price, sale price per square foot, sale date, and the property class. Complainants’ comparable sales charts include no adjustments to account for property differences. There is no evidence the subject properties are identical to and fungible with any of the purported comparable properties. Therefore, even if the data were verified, the lack of adjustments is a fatal flaw in Complainant’s comparable sales approach. Complainants did not produce substantial and persuasive evidence of the value of any subject property under the comparable sales approach.

Income Approach

“The income approach determines value by estimating the present worth of what an owner will likely receive in the future as income from the property.”  Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 347; see also Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S./Marriott Hotels, Inc. v. State Tax Comm’n, 852 S.W.2d 376, 380 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) (noting the income approach discounts “future dollars to present levels in order to compensate for risk and the elapsed time required to recapture the initial investment”).   “This approach is most appropriate in valuing investment-type properties and is reliable when rental income, operating expenses and capitalization rates can reasonably be estimated from existing market conditions.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 347.

To estimate the present worth of future income, the income approach employs “a capitalization method of valuation … derived from the market, which reduces the need for unsubstantiated, subjective judgments.” Drury Chesterfield, Inc. v. Muehlheausler, 347 S.W.3d 107, 113 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011). The income approach “is applied in three steps: (1) net income is forecasted for a specified number of years; (2) an appropriate discount factor or capitalization rate is selected; and (3) the proper discounting and/or capitalization procedure is applied.” Id. at 113. Complainants’ application of the income approach fails at the first and second steps.

Complainants failed to produce substantial and persuasive evidence of the market-based NOI of any subject property. Complainants’ counsel asserted Complainants’ exhibits establish the actual market rent, vacancy, and expenses for the subject properties. Counsel’s assertions, however, are not evidence. Andersen, 217 S.W.3d at 381. Moreover, Complainants’ NOI estimates are based on Owner’s Opinion of Value charts and CoStar reports with no witness testimony or other evidence verifying their accuracy. Complainants’ argument therefore distills to an assertion that unverified data is substantial and persuasive evidence that both rebuts the BOE’s presumptively correct valuations and establishes the predicates for persuasive value estimates pursuant to the income approach. It does not. The lack of evidence showing the accuracy and reliability of Complainants’ NOI estimates renders Complainants’ ensuing opinions of value unpersuasive. See Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 349 (holding an owner’s opinion of value “loses probative value” when it is based on improper elements or an improper foundation).

Complainants’ proposed capitalization rates are similarly unpersuasive. To estimate the present worth of future income, the income approach employs “a capitalization method of valuation … derived from the market, which reduces the need for unsubstantiated, subjective judgments.” Drury Chesterfield, 347 S.W.3d at 113. A capitalization rate represents the market-based estimate of the rate of return expected from the subject property. See State ex rel. State Highway Comm’n v. Mann, 624 S.W.2d 4, 7 (Mo. banc 1981) (noting the income approach estimates value by “using the net return of the property to determine a logical selling price”). In direct capitalization, value is estimated by dividing the NOI by the market capitalization rate for the subject property. Parker v. Doe Run Co., 553 S.W.3d 356, 364 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018); see also Appraisal Institute The Appraisal of Real Estate 491 (14th ed. 2013) (explaining the direct capitalization rate converts one year’s expected income into an indication of value by dividing estimated net operating income by an appropriate rate).  Determining the appropriate capitalization rate is critical because nominally small changes yield significant changes to value estimates.[11]

“Deriving capitalization rates from comparable sales is the preferred technique when sufficient information about sales of similar, competitive properties is available.” Appraisal of Real Estate at 493; see also Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 347 (noting the appropriate capitalization rate is that which “can reasonably be estimated from existing market conditions”). The capitalization rate can also be estimated using the band of investment method, the debt coverage ratio analysis, or investor surveys. Appraisal of Real Estate at 495–99. Investor surveys, however, “are generally used as support rather than as primary evidence of a capitalization rate.” Id. at 499.

Complainants do not utilize the preferred technique of deriving a market-based capitalization rate from comparable sales. Nor do Complainants utilize the band of investment method or the debt coverage ratio method. Instead, Complainants proposed capitalization rates are based exclusively on CoStar reports presenting estimated capitalization rates for the submarkets within which the subject properties are located. As with their NOI estimates, Complainants offered no evidence establishing the accuracy or reliability of any of these reports. On this record, adopting Complainants’ opinions of value would necessarily require the STC speculate that Complainants’ proposed capitalization rates are accurate. The net result is that Complainant’s proposed capitalization rates – and by extension their proposed values – rest on an inadequate foundation and are of limited probative value. See Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 349. Complainants did not produce substantial and persuasive evidence of the value of any subject property under the income approach.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The BOE’s decisions are affirmed.  The TVM and assessed value of each subject property as of January 1, 2019, is set forth in the attached appendix.

Application for Review

A party may file with the STC an application for review of this decision within 30 days of the mailing date set forth in the certificate of service for this decision.  The application “shall contain specific detailed grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.”  Section 138.432.  The application must be in writing, and may be mailed to the State Tax Commission of Missouri, P.O. Box 146, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146, or emailed to Legal@stc.mo.gov.  A copy of the application must be sent to each person 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.

Disputed Taxes

The Collector of St. Louis County, and 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 the disputed taxes have been disbursed pursuant to a court order under the provisions of section 139.031.

 

SO ORDERED May 7, 2021.

Eric S. Peterson

Senior Hearing Officer
State Tax Commission

 

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been electronically mailed and/or sent by U.S. Mail on May 7, 2021, to:  Complainant(s) and/or Counsel for Complainant(s), the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.

 

Elaina McKee
Legal Coordinator

 

Contact Information for State Tax Commission:
Missouri State Tax Commission
421 East Dunklin Street
P.O. Box 146
Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146
573-751-2414
Fax 573-751-1341

 

Appendix

Appeal                 Complainant              Parcel No.          TVM           Assessed Value

19-10124 6605 KINGSBURY LLC 18H130636 $822,800 $156,330
19-10125 6623 KINGSBURY LLC 18H130672 $850,000 $161,500
19-10126 JC ROBERTS 18H130700 $850,000 $161,500
19-10127 JC ROBERTS 18H130719 $1,250,500 $237,595
19-10130 JOHN G. JOYCE 18H412158 $338,100 $64,240
19-10131 NEW HAMPSHIRE REALTY LLC 18H412279 $829,000  

$157,510
19-10132 COLLEEN W. COOK 18J340775 $822,800 $156,330
19-10134 6655 KINGSBURY LLC 18J340803 $850,000 $161,500
19-10136 6829 KINGSBURY LLC 18J341248 $850,000 $161,500
19-10158 JAMES C. ROBERTS 20J620412 $343,200 $65,210
19-10267 GREEN PARK GARDENS LLC 28K641513 $660,000  

$125,400
19-10300 DEVAULT PROPERTIES LLC 32H430686 $12,435,900  

$2,362,820

[1] Complainants timely filed complaints for review of assessment. The State Tax Commission (STC) has authority to hear and decide Complainants’ appeals.  Mo. Const. art. X, sec. 14; section 138.430.1, RSMo 2000. All statutory citations are to RSMo 2000, as amended.

[2] The lone exception is appeal 19-10267, in which the exhibit omits a photograph and includes only the Owner’s Opinion of Value.

[3] In appeal 19-10124, the Google Maps photograph depicts a single building located at 500 Melville Avenue. The subject property for that appeal, however, is located at 6605 Kingsbury Boulevard.

[4] For instance, Exhibit SSSSSSS (175) in appeal 19-10126 includes a photograph with an image capture date of 2012 while Exhibit SSSSSSS (175) in appeal 19-10125 includes a photograph with an image capture date of April 2019.

[5] The signature blocks in documents filed in these appeals indicate Complainant’s counsel is affiliated with Lexstop Law Firm, LLC.

[6] This email is not included the property-specific exhibits for appeal 19-10158.

[7] This is the same email marked as Exhibit UUUUUUU (177) in the other 10 appeals with property-specific exhibits.

[8] There is no evidence showing the relevance of the July 2015 photograph of 500 Melville Avenue to the value of 6605 Kingsbury Boulevard as of January 1, 2019.

[9] See eg., Tibbs v. Poplar Bluff Assocs. I, L.P., 599 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020) (holding the BOE’s valuation is presumptively correct); Parker v. Doe Run Co., 553 S.W.3d 356, 360 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018) (“A county board of equalization’s valuation is presumed correct”); Rinehart v. Bateman, 363 S.W.3d 357, 367 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (the value fixed by the BOE is presumed correct); Drury Chesterfield, Inc. v. Muehlheausler, 347 S.W.3d 107, 115 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (affirming the STC’s decision because taxpayer did not overcome presumption the BOE’s valuation was correct); Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (noting the BOE’s value is presumptively correct); Indus. Dev. Auth. of Kansas City v. State Tax Comm’n of Missouri, 804 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991) (noting the BOE valuation is presumed correct); Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Comm’n, 564 S.W.2d 888, 895 (Mo. banc 1978) (noting the BOE valuation is presumed correct); Iron Cty. v. State Tax Comm’n, 437 S.W.2d 665, 673 (Mo. banc 1968) (noting there is a rebuttable presumption the BOE’s valuation is correct); Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n, 329 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Mo. 1959) (noting the values fixed by “reviewing boards” are presumed correct); May Dep’t Stores Co. v. State Tax Comm’n, 308 S.W.2d 748, 759 (Mo. 1958) (noting the BOE valuation is presumed correct); State ex rel. Thompson v. Bethards, 9 S.W.2d 603, 604 (Mo. banc 1928) (noting the BOE valuation is presumed correct).

[10] For nearly 150 years, Missouri law has recognized the self-evident proposition that “if there be no evidence sufficient in law to make a prima facie case on this issue, plaintiff cannot be entitled to recover.”  Callahan v. Warne, 40 Mo. 131, 135 (Mo. 1867).

[11] For example, if the NOI is $1,000,000, increasing the capitalization rate from 7% to 9% decreases the value estimate from $14.28 million to $11.11 million.