State Tax Commission of Missouri
DWAYNE & LISA CHIN,)
)
Complainants,)
)
v.) Appeal Number 07-32605
)
SCOTT SHIPMAN, ASSESSOR,)
ST. CHARLES COUNTY,MISSOURI,)
)
Respondent.)
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Decision of the St. Charles County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor, AFFIRMED, Hearing Officer finds true value in money for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 to be $443,610, assessed value of $84,290.
Complainant appeared pro se.
Respondent appeared by Counsel, Charissa Mayes, Assistant County Counselor.
Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.
ISSUE
The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2007.
SUMMARY
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the St. Charles County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.The Assessor determined an appraised value of $443,610, assessed value of $84,290, as residential property.Complainant proposed a value of $350,000, assessed value of $66,500.A hearing was conducted on January 8, 2008, at theSt. CharlesCountyAdministrationBuilding,St. Charles,Missouri.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainant’s Evidence
The following exhibits were offered into evidence on behalf of the Complainant.
Exhibit A – Appraisal Report by Jeffrey Noyes
All Exhibits were received into evidence.
Testimony of Jeffrey Noyes
Testimony of Dwayne Chin.
Respondent’s Evidence
The following exhibits were offered into evidence on behalf of the Respondent.
Exhibit 1 – Appraisal Report by Teresa Kruep
All Exhibits were received into evidence.
Testimony of Teresa Kruep
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the St. Charles County Board of Equalization.
2.The subject property is located at 9 St. Raymond,St. Charles,Missouri.The property is identified by locator number T032500291.The property consists of a 1.46 acre lot improved by a brick and siding ranch, single-family structure of average quality construction.The house was built in 2003 and appears to be in good condition.The residence has a total of ten rooms, which includes four bedrooms and 2.5 baths and contains 3,273 square feet of living area.There is a full, minimally finished basement, an attached three car garage and an outbuilding.
3.There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2008.
4.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, 2007, to be $350,000.
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.Article X, section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, RSMo.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.Section 138.431.4, RSMo.
Presumptions on Assessments
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof 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).
TheSupreme Court of Missouri has held, “A tax assessor’s valuation is presumed correct.”Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341 (Mo. 2005).Citing to Hermel, supra; and Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).
The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the assessor’s or Board’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the property.Snider, Hermel & Cupples Hesse, supra.
Complainants’ evidence failed to rise to the level of substantial and persuasive necessary to rebut the presumptions of corrects assessment in the assessing officials.
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).It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.Hermel, supra.
Market Value
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 is 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 each 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.
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.
Complainants’ Burden of Proof
In order to prevail, Complainants must present an opinion of market value and substantial and persuasive evidence that the proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject property on January 1, 2007.Hermel, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, at 897.Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.See, Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).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).See also, 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).
The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value. 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.Shelby County R-4 School District v. Hermann, 392 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Sup. 1965).
Jeffrey Noyes, Certified Residential Appraiser, testified on behalf of the Complainant.Mr. Noyes opined the market value of the property to $377,500 on November 14, 2007.The appraiser testified that the difficulty in assessing the subject property was that there were no homes or sales similar to the Complainant’s property within the immediate subject area and he needed to expand the research parameters to include properties that are recent in sales date, similar in style and design.The subject property offers more than what is typically expected or found within that subdivision.The subdivision consists of an eclectic array of newer and older properties and styles.
The Complainant’s appraiser only developed a sales approach for the subject property stating that it represents typical buyer-seller interaction and is the best indicator of value.The appraiser used three comparables properties that sold in August and October 2007 within two miles of the subject property.Adjustments were made for site size, square footage, bathroom count, construction and amenities.The comparable properties lot sizes were under .4 acres and the appraiser made a $5,000 upward adjustment.The comparable properties ranged in square footage from 2,202 to 2,630 square feet and the appraiser made upward adjustments from $19,290 to $32,130.The appraiser also made an upward $3,000 adjustment to the comparables for the subject property’s 2400 square foot outbuilding.No adjustments were made for the time of sale as the comparables were sold in August and October, 2007 and the appraiser used an effective date of November 14, 2007. The net adjustments ranged from 8.7% to 10.0% and gross adjustments ranged from 9.4% to 17.4% with resulting adjusted values of $368,350 to $386,290.
Respondent’s Evidence
Teresa Kruep, Certified Residential Appraiser, testified on behalf of the Respondent.The appraiser developed two approaches to value: sales comparison and cost approach.The appraiser relied primarily on the cost approach due to the amount of adjustments needed in the sales approach, the uniqueness of the subject property’s improvements and lot size.
Using the cost approach, the appraiser found the replacement cost new of $354,030 and the total accrued depreciation is $10,620 leaving a replacement cost new less depreciation of $343, 410.The appraiser found the depreciated value of the outbuilding to be $20,195.Using sales of vacant land, the appraiser determined the site value to be $80,000.The resulting indicated value is $443,610.
The appraiser also developed a sales comparison approach.The appraiser used four comparable properties.The location of the comparables is from next door to the subject property to 3.3 miles.The appraiser adjusted some of the comparable prices $5,000 for their inferior locations.The comparable properties were sold from July 2005 to November 2006.The appraiser adjusted the comparables for time from $2,800 to $8,800.Adjustments were also made for the quality of construction (-$20,000 to $10,000), square footage ($11,360 to $69,800) and for finish, size of garage, patio/porch/deck variance, and for the absence of an outbuilding ($10,000 – $15,000)
The appraiser made net adjustments from $36,360 to $149,600.The adjusted sales prices on the comparables ranged from $424,236 to $446,760.
Summary and Conclusion
After review of the two appraisal reports, Complainant’s evidence failed to establish by substantial and persuasive evidence that the subject property in an open market transaction on January 1, 2007 would have sold for only $350,000.The Complainant’s appraiser used an effective date of November 14, 2007 and only developed one approach to value.The Respondent’s appraiser made appropriate adjustments to the comparable properties, used the correct effective date of January 1, 2007, and developed and reconciled two approaches to value.
Complainant having failed to meet his burden of proof, the value determined by the Assessor’s staff and sustained by the Board is affirmed.
ORDER
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization forSt. CharlesCountyfor the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $84,290.
A party may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty (30) days of the mailing of such decision.The application shall contain specific grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the appeal is based will result in summary denial.Section 138.432, RSMo 2000.
If an application for review of this decision is made to the Commission, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the Commission.If no application for review is received by the Commission within thirty (30) days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of St. Charles 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.If any or all protested taxes have been disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031(8), RSMo, either party may apply to the circuit court having jurisdiction of the cause for disposition of the protested taxes held by the taxing authority.
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 January 15, 2008.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI
_____________________________________
Maureen Monaghan
Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 15th day of January, 2008, to:Dwayne & Lisa Chin, 9 St. Raymond, St. Charles, MO63304, Complainant; Charissa Mayes, Assistant County Counselor, 100 North Third Street, Room 216, St. Charles, MO 63301, Attorney for Respondent; Scott Shipman, Assessor, 201 North Second, Room 247, St. Charles, MO 63301-2870; Amy Gann, Registrar, 100 North Third Street, Suite 206, St. Charles, MO 63301; Michelle McBride, Collector, 201 North Second Street, Room 134, St. Charles, MO 63301.
___________________________
Barbara Heller
Legal Coordinator