Anglin Family Investments LP v. Connie Hoover, Assessor Jasper County

September 29th, 2014

 

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

ANGLIN FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LP., )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 13-62501
)
CONNIE HOOVER, ASSESSOR, )
JASPER COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )

ORDER

AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION

UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

 

On September 29, 2014, Senior Hearing Officer Luann Johnson issues a Decision and Order (Decision) which sustained the assessment by the Jasper County Board of Equalization

Complainant filed an Application for Review of the Decision.  Respondent filed a response and Complainant replied.

A party subject to a Decision and Order of a Hearing Officer with the State Tax Commission may file an application requesting the case be reviewed by the Commission.  The Commission may then summarily allow or deny their request.  The Commission may affirm, modify,  reverse or set aside the decision.  The Commission may take any additional evidence and conduct further hearings. Section 138.342 RSMO.

Finding of Facts

The Hearing Officer made the following finding of facts:

a.   The subject property is identified by map parcel number 16-7-36-20-8-9. It is further identified as 2521 Utica St, Joplin, Jasper County, Missouri. The subject property consists of a 100 x 120 foot lot improved by a one story 1,000 square foot residence over a crawl space.  The improvements were built in 1920.

b.  The subject property was purchased by Complainant on March 15, 2013 for $29,000. Complainant was under no compulsion to purchase the property and the property was on the market for approximately 60 days prior to sale.

c.  The Assessor appraised the property at $45,420, an assessed residential value of $8,630. The Board of Equalization raised the valuation to $45,880, an assessed residential value of $8,720.

d. Since purchase of the property, the Complainant entered into two separate contracts for deed for the subject property between the purchase date and the hearing date. Complainant could not recall the sales price(s) but the property was advertised on Complainant’s website for sale for $69,900.  Complainant’s witness testified that Complainant’s practice was to offer properties to parties with poor credit.  The parties could obtain a contract for deed by putting down 1 to 2% of the asking price and paying off the remainder in monthly payments at a 10% fixed interest rate on the balance.  Failure to make timely payments resulted in the property reverting to Complainant.  Complainant’s witness testified that, since 1999, no purchaser in Missouri had ever managed to pay off their contract.

e.  Respondent’s witnesses testified that they used Marshall Swift Valuation, adjusted for neighborhood location, for their cost approach to value. Their cost calculations were tested with verified market sales.  In preparation for this hearing, they looked at six or seven similar sales in the same neighborhood and selected the three sales which most resembled the subject property.  All sales were within six blocks of the subject property and were similar in age, size and condition.  After making adjustments for market reaction to areas of significant variation, these comparable sales suggested a market value for the subject property of $42,800.

Complainant’s Application for Review

Complainant’s Claims of Error

Complainant claims of error are that the Hearing Officer improperly failed to give appropriate weight and consideration to Complainant’s purchase of the subject property in March, 2013 for $29,000.  Complainant also argues that the Hearing Officer’s comment regarding the lack of evidence as to the seller’s motivation improperly shifted a burden of proof to the Complainant.  Complainant argues that evidence of the purchase of the property satisfied their burden of proof and the burden then shifted to the Respondent to refute the evidence.

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).

Presumption In Appeal and Complainant’s Burden of Proof

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.  In order to prevail, Complainant was required to 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.   It was Complainant’s sole burden to meet.  Respondent was under no obligation to put on any evidence.  The higher value of the Board of Equalization could simply have been affirmed with no evidence being offered by Respondent.  Nevertheless, Respondent presented evidence to lower the value of the property and the evidence presented by the Respondent – three sales comparable to the subject property – was substantial and persuasive to set aside the valuation by the Board of Equalization and reduce the market value to $42,800.

Sale of Subject

 

Evidence of the actual sales price of property is admissible to establish value at the time of an assessment, provided that such evidence involves a voluntary purchase not too remote in time.  The actual sale price is a method that may be considered for estimating true value.  However, the sale price is not necessarily conclusive of value.  In Stein v. State Tax Commission, 379 S.W.2d 495 (Mo 1964) ruled that:

“We certainly do not agree that the sale price of this property is conclusive as to its true market value. It is common knowledge that a purchaser will sometimes obtain a bargain and thus pay less than the true value for property, and, on other occasions, will pay more than the true value to obtain certain property. As one witness expressed it, ‘you might get a bargain or you might get stung.’”

 

The Stein case was cited in Equity Land Resources v. Department of Revenue, 1973 WL 1045 Or.Tax, 1973 (April 23, 1973)

“The defendant, in rebuttal, quoted the oft repeated adage that ‘one sale doesn’t make a market.’ This rule-of-thumb is supported by a number of cases holding that the sale price of a specific item of real estate is not conclusive as to its fair market value. State v. State Tax Commission, 393 SW2d 460 (Mo 1965); Josten-Wilbert Vault Co. v. Board of Equalization, 179 Neb 415, 138 NW2d 641 (1965);  Stein v. State Tax Commission, 379 SW2d 495 (Mo. 1964)  Rek Investment Co. v. Newark, 80 NJ Super 552, 194 A2d 368 (1963). In this court’s view a single sale may be some indication of market value, but it is suspect. Kem v. Dept. of Rev., 5 OTR 178, 182 (1973). This is especially true when the subject property constitutes the sale.”

 

The sale of the subject presents some evidence of market value.  The hearing officer must then review the evidence and weigh it accordingly.  The evidence of other sales within the subject’s market – location, size, age – diminishes the substance and persuasiveness of the evidence of the sale price of the subject parcel.  Additionally, evidence of the subject property being under contract twice since the sale and being listed at $69,900 is an indication that the sale of the subject is not persuasive as to the market value of the subject property on January 1, 2013.

ORDER

The Decision of the Hearing Officer is AFFIRMED.  The State Tax Commission concludes that the Decision of the County Board of Equalization was properly SET ASIDE.  The assessed value of the subject property is $8,130.

Judicial review of this Order may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.432 and 536.100 to 536.140, RSMo within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service for this Order.

If judicial review of this decision is made, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the courts unless disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031.8, RSMo.

If no judicial review is made within thirty days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of  Jasper 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.

 

SO ORDERED December 16, 2014

 

 

 

 

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

 

Randy Holman, Commissioner

 

Victor Callahan, Commissioner

 

 

 

Certificate of Service

 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid this 19th day of December, 2014, to:

Paul A. Boudreau, Attorney for Complainant, 312 E. Capitol Ave., Jefferson City, MO 65102;

Norman Rouse, Attorney for Respondent, 5957 East 20th St., Joplin Missouri 64801

Jasper County Assessor, Connie Hoover, 302 S. Main St., Room 201, Carthage, MO 64836

Jasper County Clerk, Bonnie Earl, 302 S. Main St., Room 201, Carthage, MO 64836

Jasper County Collector, Stephen Holt, 302 S. Main St., Room 201, Carthage, MO 64836

 

 

 

Legal Coordinator

 

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

ANGLIN FAMILY INVESTMENTS, LP., )
)
Complainant, )
)
v. ) Appeal Number 13-62501
)
CONNIE HOOVER, ASSESSOR, )
JASPER COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )

 

 

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Decision of the County Board of Equalization setting value for the subject property at $45,880 is SET ASIDE . Complainant does not present substantial and persuasive evidence to prove proposed value of $29,000. Respondent presents substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization and establish value of $42,800.

True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2013 and 2014 is set at $42,800 residential assessed value of $8,130.

Complainant appeared by attorney Paul A. Boudreau and General Manager Bobby Anglin.

Respondent appeared by attorney Norman Rouse, appraiser Lee Carsten, and Lisa Perry

Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer Luann Johnson.

 

ISSUE

Complainant appeals, on the ground(s) of overvaluation the decision of the Jasper County Board of Equalization, which set the valuation of the subject property at $45,880 – raising the assessor’s proposed value of $45,420. The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2013. 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 Jasper County Board of Equalization.
  2. Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at the Jasper County Courthouse, Carthage, Missouri.
  3. Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by map parcel number 16-7.0-36-20-008-009.000. It is further identified as 2521 Utica Street, Joplin, Jasper County, Missouri.
  4. Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of a 100 foot by 120 foot lot improved by a one story 1,000 square foot conventional style home over a crawl space. The improvements were built in 1920.
  5. Sale of Subject. The subject property was purchased by Complainant on March 15, 2013 for $29,000. Complainant was under no compulsion to purchase the property and the property was on the market for approximately 60 days prior to sale. But, no evidence was presented to establish that the seller was not under duress to make the sale.
  6. Assessment. The Assessor appraised the property at $45,420, an assessed residential value of $8,630. The Board of Equalization set value at $45,880 an assessed residential value of $8,720.
  7. Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant entered the following exhibits into evidence:
Exhibit A Certificate of Registration of a foreign limited partnership
Exhibit B Photograph of property located at 2521 Utica Street, Joplin, MO
Exhibit C Copy of the Board of Equalization’s hearing results
Exhibit D HUD settlement statement
Exhibit E Written Direct Testimony of Bobby Anglin
Exhibit F Listing for subject property showing asking price of $29,000

 

  1. No Evidence of New Construction & Improvement. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2013, to January 1, 2014, therefore the assessed value for 2013 remains the assessed value for 2014. Section 137.115.1, RSMo.
  2. Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent entered the following exhibits into evidence:
Exhibit 1 Locator Map
Exhibit 2 Adjustment Grid for subject and comparables
Exhibit 3 Property Record Card and pictures of subject
Exhibit 4 Property Record Card, sales letter, and pictures of Comp #1
Exhibit 5 Property Record Card, sales letter, and pictures of Comp #2
Exhibit 6 Property Record Card, sales letter, and pictures of Comp #3

 

  1. Complainant’s Testimony. Mr. Anglin testified that Anglin Family Investments purchased the subject property for $29,000 in March, 2013. He testified that he believed the purchase to be an arms-length transaction. He testified that he had no knowledge of the seller’s motivation. He further testified that Anglin Family Investments entered into two separate contracts for deed for the subject property between the purchase date and the hearing date. Complainant’s witness could not recall what the sales price(s) were but the property was advertised on Complainant’s website for sale for $69,900. Complainant’s witness testified that Complainant’s practice was to offer properties to parties with poor credit. The parties could obtain a contract for deed by putting down 1 to 2% of the asking price and paying off the remainder in monthly payments at a 10% fixed interest rate on the balance. Failure to make timely payments resulted in the property reverting to Complainant. Complainant’s witness testified that, since 1999, no purchaser in Missouri had ever managed to pay off their contract.
  2. Respondent’s Testimony. Respondent’s witnesses testified that they used Marshall Swift Valuation, adjusted for neighborhood location, for their cost approach to value. Their cost calculations were tested with verified market sales. In preparation for this hearing, they looked at six or seven similar sales in the same neighborhood and selected the three sales which most resembled the subject property. All sales were within six blocks of the subject property and were similar in age, size and condition. After making adjustments for market reaction to areas of significant variation, these comparable sales suggested a market value for the subject property of $42,800.
  3. Presumption of Correct Assessment Rebutted – Respondent’s 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 $42,800, assessed residential value of $8,130.
  4. Complainant Fails to Prove Value. A sales price may be a good indicator for value of a property but only if all the criteria for a market sale are met. In this instance, Complainant has demonstrated a willing buyer and an arm’s length transaction but has not addressed the circumstances of the seller. A willing seller is necessary to find that a sale represents market value. A willing seller is one who is not obligated to sell. Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 SW 3d 345 (Mo. App. ED 2008). We do not know if the seller was obligated to sell the property, but the fact that it sold for significantly less than other similar properties suggests an element of duress. We are also troubled that Complainant has failed to provide information about the subsequent contract for deed amounts, which would have shed light on the reliability of the March, 2013 purchase price.

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; commercial property at 32% of true value in money and agricultural property at 12% 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).

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’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, 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).

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.

 

  1. Both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interests.

 

  1. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.

 

  1. Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.

 

  1. Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.

 

  1. 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.

 

 

Official and Judicial Notice

Agencies shall take official notice of all matters of which the courts take judicial notice. Section 536.070(6), RSMo. Courts will take judicial notice of their own records in the same cases. State ex rel. Horton v. Bourke, 129 S.W.2d 866, 869 (1939); Barth v. Kansas City Elevated Railway Company, 44 S.W. 788, 781 (1898).

In addition, courts may take judicial notice of records in earlier cases when justice requires or when it is necessary for a full understanding of the instant appeal. Burton v. Moulder, 245 S.W.2d 844, 846 (Mo. 1952); Knorp v. Thompson, 175 S.W.2d 889, 894 (1943); Bushman v. Barlow, 15 S.W.2d 329, 332 (Mo. banc 1929); State ex rel St. Louis Public Service Company v. Public Service Commission, 291 S.W.2d 95, 97 (Mo. banc 1956).

Courts may take judicial notice of their own records in prior proceedings involving the same parties and basically the same facts. In re Murphy, 732 S.W.2d 895, 902 (Mo. banc 1987); State v. Gilmore, 681 S.W.2d 934, 940 (Mo. banc 1984); State v. Keeble, 399 S.W.2d 118, 122 (Mo. 1966).

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).

Opinion Testimony by Experts

            An expert’s opinion must be founded upon substantial information, not mere conjecture or speculation, and there must be a rational basis for the opinion. Missouri Pipeline Co. v. Wilmes, 898 S.W. 2d 682, 687 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995). The State Tax Commission cannot ignore a lack of support in the evidence for adjustments made by the expert witnesses in the application of a particular valuation approach. Drey v. State Tax Commission, 345 S.W. 2d 228, 234-236 (Mo. 1961), Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W. 3d, 341, 348 (Mo. 2005).

            The testimony of an expert is to be considered like any other testimony, is to be tried by the same test, and receives just so much weight and credit as the trier of fact may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, has the authority to weigh the evidence and 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 may accept it in part or reject it in part. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W. 2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W. 2d 605, 607 (Mo. 1981); Scanlon v. Kansas City, 28 S.W. 2d 84, 95 (Mo. 1930).

If specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert on that subject, by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto.

The facts or data upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to the expert at or before the hearing and must be of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject and must be otherwise reliable, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.

Section 490.065, RSMo; State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (Mo. SC. 2004); Courtroom Handbook on Missouri Evidence, Wm. A. Schroeder, Sections 702-505, pp. 325-350; Wulfing v. Kansas City Southern Industries, Inc., 842 S.W.2d 133 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992).

 

 

Sale of Subject

 

Evidence of the actual sales price of property is admissible to establish value at the time of an assessment, provided that such evidence involves a voluntary purchase not too remote in time. The actual sale price is a method that may be considered for estimating true value. The actual sales price, between a willing seller who is not obligated to sell and a willing buyer who is not compelled to buy, establishes an outer limit on the value of real property. St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. STC, 854 S.W.2d 526 (App. E.D. 1993).

Respondent Proves Value

Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a fair market value as of January 1, 2013 and 2014, to be $42,800 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 sustained by the Board of Equalization for Jasper County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2013 and 2014 is set at $8,130.

 

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 Jasper 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 this 29th day of September, 2014.

 

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Luann Johnson

Hearing Officer

 

 

Certificate of Service

 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed on this 29th day of September, 2014 to: Paul A. Boudreau, Attorney for Complainant, 312 E. Capitol Ave., Jefferson City, MO 65102;

Norman Rouse, Attorney for Respondent, 5957 East 20th St., Joplin Missouri 64801

Jasper County Assessor, Connie Hoover, 302 S. Main St., Room 201, Carthage, MO 64836

Jasper County Clerk, Bonnie Earl, 302 S. Main St., Room 201, Carthage, MO 64836

Jasper County Collector, Stephen Holt, 302 S. Main St., Room 201, Carthage, MO 64836

 

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator