Daniel & Sheila Stadler v. Keck (Henry)

November 29th, 2011

State Tax Commission of Missouri






v.) Appeal Number 11-59500












Decision of the Henry County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2011 and 2012 is set at $84,000, residential assessed value of $15,960 and $19,900, agricultural assessed value of $2,390; Total value of $103,900, combined residential and agricultural assessed value of $18,350.Complainant Daniel H. Stadler appeared pro se.Respondent appeared in person and with Counsel, Richard Shields, Prosecuting Attorney, Henry County.

Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.


Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Henry County Board of Equalization, which sustained 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, 2011.The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.


1.Jurisdiction.Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Henry County Board of Equalization.A hearing was conducted on November 1, 2011, at the Henry County Courthouse, Clinton, Missouri.

2.Assessment.The Assessor appraised the property at $84,000, residential assessment of $15,960, and set an agricultural value of $19,900, assessed value of $2,390.[1]The Board sustained the assessment.[2]

3.Assessment Appealed.Complainants did not challenge the agricultural assessment of the property, but only appealed on the ground of overvaluation of the residential portion of the subject property.[3]

4.Subject Property.The subject property is located at 895 SE 1201 Road, Deepwater, Missouri.The property is identified by map parcel number 21-6.0-23-000-000-019.006.The property consists of 40.3 acres, of which a half acre is improved with a residential structure.It is the half acre home site and home that is the subject of the appeal.

5.Complainant’s Evidence.Mr. Stadler testified on behalf of Complainants.The following exhibits were received into evidence on behalf of Complainants, without objection.




Change Notice for Subject – 6/12/11


BOE Appeal Form – 6/27/11


Four photographs of portions of subject.


None of the exhibits received into evidence on behalf of Complainants provided any relevant information to establish what a willing buyer and seller would have agreed to as the purchase price of the subject on January 1, 2011.

There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2011, to the date of hearing.There were no plans for any new construction and improvement prior to January 1, 2012,[4] therefore the assessed value for 2011 remains the assessed value for 2012.[5]

Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2011, to be $85,000, as proposed on the Complaint for Review of Assessment.[6]See, Complainants’ Fail To Prove Value, infra.

6.Respondent’s Evidence.Respondent testified at hearing and the following exhibits were received into evidence on behalf of Respondent.




Area Map – Subject and 10 other Properties


Sales Listings for Properties on Exhibit 1


2011 – Subject Property Assessment Report


2010 – Subject Property Assessment Report


Henry County Depreciation Chart


Listing of Henry County 2011 Sales


Current Henry County Sales Ratio Study




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.[7]

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.[8]The constitutional mandate is to find the true value in money for the property under appeal. By statute real and tangible personal property is assessed at set percentages of true value in money.[9]In an overvaluation appeal, true value in money for the property being appealed must be determined based upon the evidence on the record that is probative on the issue of the fair market value of the property under appeal.

Presumption In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.[10]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.[11]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.[12]Complainants failed to meet their burden of proof.The evidence submitted was insufficient to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board.

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.[13]True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use.[14]It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[15]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 consider their own best interests.


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.[16]


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.[17]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.[18]Complainants did not present any evidence of a valuation of the property under appeal by a recognized appraisal methodology.


Complainants’ Fail to Prove Value

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, 2011.[19]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.”[20]

Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[21]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.[22]

Mr. Stadler’s testimony was that he had “no idea” as to the value as of January 1, 2011.He expressed since the property was not to be sold, he had no opinion as to the value of the property.The main point which the taxpayer made was that his value and hence taxes had increased when he believe home values were decreasing all over the country.

This case illustrates the common error that taxpayers often make when appealing their assessment to the Commission.The homeowner focuses on the value the Assessor placed on the property in the prior assessment cycle and assumes it actually was the market value.That might or might not be the case.In any event, reports of general trends regarding housing, do not establish the value of a single property.They certainly do not establish the value of the property that is the subject of this appeal.Complainants failed to give an opinion of value or present any evidence relevant to what a willing buyer and seller would have paid for the property on

January 1, 2011.Accordingly, they failed to prove that the value of $85,000 was the true value in money on January 1, 2011, of the entire tract of 40 + acres.The presumption that the Board properly assessed the property being un-rebutted, the value of $103,900 stands.

Respondent’s Evidence

Respondent had no burden to prove value or to disprove the owner’s opinion of value.A Respondent may always simply rest upon the presumption of correct assessment by the Board.The evidence presented by Respondent was to give support for the Board’s value and in effect was supplemental to the presumption.Since Complainants failed to make a prima facie case for the relief sought, there is no need to present a detailed analysis of the evidence presented by Respondent.


The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for Henry County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2011 and 2012 is set at $15,960 – residential and $2,390 – agricultural; total assessed value of $18,350.

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, MO65102-0146, 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. [23]

Disputed Taxes

The Collector of Henry County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall hold the disputed taxes pending the possible filing of an Application for Review.If no Application for Review is filed within thirty days of the date of this Decision, the disputed taxes are to be disbursed in accordance with the assessment herein made.

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 November 29, 2011.





W. B. Tichenor

Senior Hearing Officer





Certificate of Service


I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 29thday of November, 2011, to:Daniel Stadler, 895 SE 1201 Rd., Deepwater, MO 64740, Complainant; Richard Shields, Prosecuting Attorney, 100 West Franklin Street, Clinton, MO 64735, Attorney for Respondent; James Keck, Assessor; Rick Watson, Clerk; Maggie Stoddard, Treasurer and ex officio Collector, Henry County Courthouse, Clinton, MO 64735.




Barbara Heller

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


573-751-1341 Fax




[1] Residential property is assessed at 19% of its appraised (true value in money, fair market value);Agricultural property land is appraised at 12% of its land grade, or in the case of agricultural structures of their appraised value.Section 137.115.5 RSMo


[2] Board Decision Letter, dtd 7/27/11


[3] Complaint for Review of Assessment; Testimony of Daniel K. Stadler at evidentiary hearing


[4] Testimony of Daniel K. Stadler at hearing


[5] Section 137.115.1, RSMo.


[6] Assuming that Complainants were advocating a total value of $85,000, the agricultural value of $19,900 which was not being appealed would have to be subtracted from the $85,000, which would provided an indicated residential value of only $65,100.No evidence was presented from which a conclusion of value for the residential portion of the property would only be $65,100.


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


[8] Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945


[9] Section 137.115.5, RSMo


[10] 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)


[11] United Missouri Bank of Kansas City v. March, 650 S.W.2d 678, 680-81 (Mo. App. 1983), citing to State ex rel. Christian v. Lawry, 405 S.W.2d 729, 730 (Mo. App. 1966) and cases therein cited.


[12] Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959)


[13] 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).


[14] 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).


[15] Hermel, supra.


[16] 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.


[17] 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).


[18] 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).


[19] Hermel, supra.


[20] 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).


[21] See, Cupples-Hesse, supra.


[22] Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).


[23] Section 138.432, RSMo.