Attilio Cosgrove v. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

ATTILIO COSGROVE,	)
Complainant,	)	Appeal No. 19-10574
	)
	)	Parcel No. 18J120281
v.	)
	)
JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR,	)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
Respondent.	)

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

Attilio Cosgrove (Complainant) appeals the St. Louis County Board of Equalization’s (BOE) decision finding the true value in money (TVM) of the subject property on January 1, 2019, was $320,000 with an assessed value of $60,800.   Complainant claims the property is overvalued and proposes a value of $275,000.[1] Complainant did not produce substantial and persuasive evidence establishing overvaluation.  The BOE’s decision is affirmed.[2]

The evidentiary hearing was conducted on October 28, 2020, at the Wainwright State Office Building in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. Complainant appeared pro se and in person.   Respondent was represented by counsel Monique Nketah, who appeared via WebEx video conference.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Subject Property. The subject property is located at 7343 Lindell Blvd in St. Louis, Missouri. The parcel/locator number is 18J120281.

The subject property consists of a 2,756 square foot two-family building. Each of the two units has three bedrooms, one full bath, and one half bath. Complainant testified that he and his wife are the owners of the subject property, which was purchased over 20 years ago. The subject property is typically rented to college students.

2. Respondent and BOE. Respondent classified the subject property as residential and determined the TVM on January 1, 2019, was $377,900. The BOE classified the subject property as residential and independently determined the TVM on January 1, 2019, was $320,000.
3. Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant asserts the TVM of the subject property on January 1, 2019, was $275,000. Complainant submitted the following exhibits:

Exhibit	Description	Ruling
A	Appraisal as of January 1, 2019, of subject property by William M. McGeorge, Premier Appraisal Group.	Admitted
B	Copy of page titled “Setting Realistic Expectations for the Appraised Value of Duplexes, Triplexes & Fourplexes” by Mike Hanna and Lynee Dee Murrow with highlighting.	Admitted
C	October 4, 2019, Board of Equalization Findings and Notice of Decision determining the appraised value of the subject property to be $320,000.[3]	Admitted
D	A one-page, highlighted article by McKissock titled “Appraisal: The Challenges with Appraising Multiple-Unit Properties.”	Admitted
E	May 8, 2019, Change of Assessment Notice for the subject property.[4]	Admitted
F	STC Assessor Manual pages IV – 1 and IV – 2 from the Ratio Study chapter with highlighting.	Admitted
G	Part of pamphlet from St. Charles County Assessor’s Office with highlighting and note.	Admitted
H	Summary of adjustments prepared by Complainant	Admitted
I	Summary of appraisals prepared by Complainant	Admitted

 

Respondent objected to Exhibits B, D, F, and G, and Exhibits A through I were received into evidence to be given the weight deemed appropriate.

Complainant testified and presented the testimony of William M. McGeorge, a residential appraiser with Premier Appraisal Group. Mr. McGeorge testified that his opinion of value for the subject property was $275,000.  In Exhibit A, Mr. McGeorge utilizes the income approach and sales comparison approach to estimate the market value of the subject property from four comparable rentals and six comparable sales, respectively. Mr. McGeorge calculated a $310,500 value for the subject property using the income approach, based upon a total gross monthly rent of $2,700 multiplied by a 115 gross rent multiplier, and a $275,000 value for the subject property using the sales comparison approach. In using the income approach, Mr. McGeorge indicated that “[b]ecause the reported rents [of the subject property] were higher than typical for the overall market, market rents were used to calculate the Income Approach.” (Ex. A at 14.) Although Mr. McGeorge considered the income approach, Mr. McGeorge indicated that “[m]ost weight was given to the Sales Comparison Approach.” (Ex. A at 15.) As to the sales comparison approach, the key property data in Exhibit A are as follows:

 

	Subject Property	Comp. 1	Comp. 2	Comp. 3	Comp. 4	Comp. 5	Comp. 6
Address	7343 Lindell Blvd	7229 Tulane Ave.	7375 Amherst Ave.	7251 Dartmouth Ave.	7265 Delmar Blvd.	7122 Tulane Ave.	7135 Amherst Ave.
Proximity to subject		0.93 miles NE	0.89 miles NW	0.97 miles NE	0.63 miles NE	0.93 miles NE	0.91 miles NE
Date of sale/time		10/30/2018	10/26/2018	07/02/2018	06/08/2018	06/29/2018	01/19/2018
View	A; res; bsyrd[5]	N; res	N; res	N; res	A; res; bsyrd	N; res	N; res
Design	2 Family	2 Family	2 Family	2 Family	2 Family	2 Family	2 Family
Condition	Average	Average +	Average	Average	Average +	Average	Average
Gross building area 20	2,756	2,736	3,096	2,576	2,592	2,430	2,688
Unit Breakdown total/bedrooms/baths	Unit 1: 6/3/1.1 Unit 2: 6/3/1.1	Unit 1: 6/2/1 Unit 2: 6/2/1	Unit 1: 6/3/1 Unit 2: 6/3/1	Unit 1: 5/3/1 Unit 2: 5/3/1	Unit 1: 6/3/1 Unit 2: 6/3/1	Unit 1: 5/2/1 Unit 2: 5/2/1	Unit 1: 5/2/1 Unit 2: 5/2/1
Parking on/off site	2 car carport	2 car garage	Offstreet	2 car bln[6] garage	2 car bln garage	2 car garage	Street parking
Porch/patio/deck	Porch	Porch, balcony	Porch, balcony	Porch, balcony	Porch	Porch/balcony	Pr,[7] pto,[8] dk[9]
Total net adjustment		$14,600	$7,800	$1,400	$16,720	$11,520	$11,000
Adjusted sale price		$275,400	$267,200	$239,600	$292,280	$266,520	$261,000

 

The comparable properties are similar with respect to design, quality of construction, actual age, basement description, basement finished rooms, and functional utility. Comparables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 differ from the subject property with respect to view, condition, gross building area,  unit breakdown, and parking on/off site; view, gross building area, unit breakdown, and parking on/off site; view, gross building area, unit breakdown, and parking on/off site; condition, gross building area, unit breakdown and parking on/off site; view gross building area, unit breakdown, parking on/off site; and view, unit breakdown, parking on/off sit, and porch/patio/deck, respectively. Exhibit A indicates that these differences have been adjusted for determining an opinion of value.

4.   Respondent’s Evidence.  Respondent submitted Exhibit 1, a restricted appraisal report for the subject property, which was prepared by Senior Appraiser Steven J. Zahner. In Exhibit 1, Mr. Zahner determined the TVM of the subject property on January 1, 2019, was $322,000. Complainant did not object, and the exhibit was received into evidence.

Mr. Zahner testified in support of his opinion of value. In Exhibit 1, Mr. Zahner utilizes the income approach and sales comparison approach to estimate the market value of the subject property from three comparable rentals and four comparable sales, respectively. Mr. Zahner calculated a $378,000 value for the subject property using the income approach, based upon a $2,700 market rent for both units multiplied by a 140[10] gross rent multiplier, and a $322,000 value for the subject property using the sales comparison approach. In using the income approach, Mr. Zahner indicated the actual rents of $1,545 for each unit “are considerably higher than typical for similar properties in the subject market,” and that a $1,350 monthly rent for each unit was “a reasonable estimate of the subject’s market rent[.]” (Ex. 1 at 8.) Mr. Zahner further indicated that “[d]ue to the abundance of comparable sales in the subject’s market, there is no need to rely on the Income Approach.” (Ex. 1 at 11.) As to the sales comparison approach, the key property data in Exhibit 1 are as follows:

	Subject Property	Comp. 1	Comp. 2	Comp. 3	Comp. 4
Address	7343 Lindell Blvd.	7943 Delmar Blvd.	7829 Delmar Blvd.	7265 Delmar Blvd.	7720 Delmar Blvd.
Proximity to subject		1.18 miles NW	1.08 miles NW	0.63 miles NE	0.94 miles NW
Date of sale/time		08/15/2016	10/02/2016	06/08/2018	05/20/2016
Location	Traffic Street	Traffic Street	Traffic Street	Traffic Street	Traffic Street
View	Residential	Residential	Residential	Residential	Residential
Design	2 Family Flat	2 Family Flat	2 Family Flat	2 Family Flat	2 Family Flat
Condition	Average	Above Average	Above Average	Above Average	Above Average
Gross building area 20	2,756	3,554	2,997	2,592	2,758
Unit Breakdown total/bedrooms/baths	Unit 1: 6/3/1.1 Unit 2: 6/3/1.1	Unit 1: 6/3/2 Unit 2: 6/3/2	Unit 1: 6/2/1 Unit 2: 6/2/1	Unit 1: 6/3/1 Unit 2: 6/3/1	Unit 1: 5/2/1 Unit 2: 5/2/1
Basement Finished Rooms	Unfinished	1 Rm, No Bath	Unfinished	Unfinished	Unfinished
Parking on/off site	2 Car Carport	4 Car Bsmt Gar.	4 Car Bsmt Gar.	2 Car Bsmt Gar.	2 Car Carport
Porch/patio/deck	None	Balcony	None	None	None
Total net adjustment		$37,960	$3,180	$720	$10,000
Adjusted sale price		$322,040	$343,180	$308,280	$324,000

 

The comparable properties are similar with respect to location, view, design, quality of construction, actual age, basement description, functional utility, and porch/patio/deck. Comparables 1, 2, 3, and 4 differ from the subject property with respect to condition, gross building area, unit breakdown, basement finished rooms, and parking on/off site; condition, gross building area, unit breakdown, and parking on/off site; condition, gross building area, and unit breakdown;  and condition and unit breakdown, respectively. Exhibit 1 indicates that these differences have been adjusted for when determining an opinion of value.

5. Value. The TVM of the subject property on January 1, 2019, was $320,000, with an assessed value of $60,800.

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 TVM is a factual issue for the STC.  Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). The “proper methods of valuation and assessment of property are delegated to the Commission.”  Savage v. State Tax Comm’n, 722 S.W.2d 72, 75 (Mo. banc 1986).

            “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 comparable sales approach “is most appropriate when there is an active market for the type of property at issue such that sufficient data are available to make a comparative analysis.”  Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 348.  “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.”  Id. at 347-48 (internal quotation omitted).  “Comparable sales consist of evidence of sales reasonably related in time and distance and involve land comparable in character.”  Id. at 348.

2. 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 finder of fact in an administrative hearing determines the credibility and weight of expert testimony.  Hornbeck v. Spectra Painting, Inc., 370 S.W.3d 624, 632 (Mo. banc 2012).  “It is within the purview of the hearing officer to determine the method of valuation to be adopted in a given case.” Tibbs v. Poplar Bluff Assocs. I, L.P., 599 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020).   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.
3. Complainant’s Burden of Proof. The taxpayer bears the burden of proof and must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was overvalued or misclassified. 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” and must prove “the value that should have been placed on the property.”  Id.  “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”).        
4. Complainant Did Not Prove Overvaluation. Complainant did not produce substantial and persuasive evidence establishing that the BOE’s valuation was erroneous and that Complainant’s opinion of value, $275,000, was the TVM of the subject property as of January 1, 2019. While Complainant’s appraiser prepared a detailed appraisal report, Exhibit A, and provided supporting testimony, Complainant’s evidence was not persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct valuation by the BOE. Except for comparable 4, which is located on Delmar Boulevard, the comparable sales utilized in Exhibit A are located north of Delmar Boulevard. (Ex. A at 24.) Mr. Zahner persuasively testified that the comparable sales utilized in Exhibit 1, which are all located on Delmar Boulevard, are from “more of a comparable neighborhood than the properties north of Delmar.”[11] (Tr. pt. 1 1:00:10-1:01:55.)

Further, Respondent presented persuasive evidence in support of the BOE’s valuation. Although three of the comparable sales listed in Exhibit 1 are from 2016, on cross examination, Mr. Zahner testified that he used these sales because they are located “in the subject’s market.” (Tr. pt. 2 00:50-02:00.)  In Exhibit 1, Mr. Zahner developed a $322,000 opinion of value utilizing four comparable sales. The BOE’s value, $320,000, is only $2,000 less than Mr. Zahner’s opinion of value and falls within the range of adjusted sale prices for the comparable properties listed in Exhibit 1, $308,280 to $343,180.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The BOE decision is affirmed.  The TVM of the subject property as of January 1, 2019, was $320,000 with an assessed value of $60,800.[12]

Application for Review

A party may file with the Commission 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, 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, 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.

 

SO ORDERED October 8, 2021.

 

 

Laura A. Storck-Elam

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 October 8, 2021, to: Complainant(s) and/or Counsel for Complainant(s), the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.

 

Elaina Mejia

Legal Coordinator

 

 

 

[1] In the Complaint for Review of Assessment, Complainant’s proposed value was $255,000. During the evidentiary hearing, Complainant testified that he believes the value should be $275,000 based on his appraiser’s opinion of value.

[2] Complainant timely filed a complaint for review of assessment.  The State Tax Commission (STC) has authority to hear and decide Complainant’s appeal.   Mo. Const. art. X, Section 14; section 138.430.1, RSMo 2000.  All statutory citations are to RSMo 2000, as amended.

[3] This exhibit also includes a Findings and Notice of Decision for the property the subject of appeal number 19-10575.

[4] This exhibit also includes a Change of Assessment Notice for the property the subject of appeal number 19-10575.

_[5]Busy road.

[6] Basement.

[7] Porch.

[8] Patio.

[9] Deck.

[10] Mr. Zahner used “a typical Gross Rent Multiplier for two family properties located on Delmar and south of Delmar of 140.” (Ex. 1 at 9.)

[11] In Exhibit H and testimony, Complainant argued that Respondent’s appraiser was inconsistent when he made some adjustments in Exhibit 1. However, at least some of these perceived inconsistencies appear to be due to a difference in opinion as to the contributory value of the characteristics. For example, as to Respondent’s comparable 3, located at 7265 Delmar, while Complainant contends that a negative $2,000 adjustment would be appropriate based upon other adjustments that had been made in the appraisal for the property the subject of appeal number 19-10575, Respondent’s appraiser testified, on cross-examination, that he found the contributory value of two carports similar to the contributory value of two basement garages. Further, even subtracting an additional $2,000 from the adjusted sale price of Respondent’s comparable 3 would result in $306,280, which is significantly higher than Complainant’s proposed value.

[12] Missouri operates on a two-year reassessment cycle for valuing real property.  See Section 137.115.1.  Absent new construction or improvements to a parcel of real property, the assessed value as of January 1 of the odd year remains the assessed value as of January 1 of the following even year.  Id.