George Miller v. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

GEORGE MILLER,	) ) ) )	Appeal Nos. 19-10761 19-10762 19-10763 19-10764
Complainant,	)	Parcel Nos.   29Z620046
	)	29Z620035
v.	)	29Z620024
	)	29Z620057
JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR,	)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
Respondent.	)

 

DECISION AND ORDER 

            George Miller (Complainant) appeals the St. Louis County Board of Equalization’s (BOE) decisions finding the true value in money (TVM) of the subject properties for appeal numbers 19-10761, 19-10762, 19-10763,  and 19-10764 on January 1, 2019, was $88,500, with an assessed value of $16,820; $72,700 with an assessed value of $13,810; $73,500 with an assessed value of $13,970; and $70,500 with an assessed value of $13,400, respectively.  Complainant claims the properties are overvalued and proposes a value of $30,000 for each of the subject properties.  Complainant did not produce substantial and persuasive evidence establishing overvaluation.  The BOE’s decisions are affirmed.[1]

The evidentiary hearing was conducted on March 9, 2021, via WebEx. Complainant appeared pro se.  Respondent was represented by counsel Monique Nketah.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Subject Property. For appeal numbers 19-10761, 19-10762, 19-10763, and 19-10764, the subject properties are located at 5017, 5025, 5033, and 5009 Fox Creek Crossing Dr. in St. Louis County, Missouri, respectively.  The parcel/locator numbers for appeal numbers 19-10761, 19-10762, 19-10763, and 19-10764 are 29Z620046, 29Z620035, 29Z620024, and 29Z620057, respectively. The subject properties collectively consist of over 14 acres situated in Wildwood, St. Louis County, Missouri.
2. Respondent and BOE. For appeal numbers 19-10761 through 19-10764, Respondent classified the subject properties as residential and determined the TVM on January 1, 2019, was $88,500, $72,700, $73,500, and $70,500, respectively. The BOE classified the subject properties as residential and independently determined the TVM on January 1, 2019, to be $88,500, $72,700, $73,500, and $70,500, respectively..
3. Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant asserts the TVM of each of the subject properties on January 1, 2019, was $30,000. Complainant testified in support of his opinion of value and submitted the following exhibits:

Exhibit	Description	Ruling
Complainant 1	Photograph of creek.	Admitted
Complainant 2	Photograph of creek.	Admitted
Complainant 3	Photograph of road to subject properties that cannot be driven on when water is high.	Admitted
Complainant 4	Photograph of creek	Admitted
Complainant 5	Photograph of creek	Admitted
Complainant 6	Photograph of creek	Admitted
Complainant 7	Photograph of creek	Admitted
Complainant 8	Photograph of creek	Admitted
Complainant 9	A $42,475 Rademacher Excavating estimate to “install drive into lot [subject property 5009] and culvert pipe to get over creek with concrete head walls.”	Admitted
Complainant 10	A $51,075 Rademacher Excavating estimate to “install drive into lot [subject property 5017] and culvert pipe to get over creek with concrete head walls.”	Admitted
Complainant 11	A $77,950 Rademacher Excavating estimate to “install drive into lot [subject property 5025] and culvert pipe to get over creek with concrete head walls.”	Admitted
Complainant 12	A $104,350 Rademacher Excavating estimate to “demo old low water bridge and install 48 feet of 6 foot box culverts with concrete head walls” at “Fox Creek Crossing low water bridge.”	Admitted
Complainant 13	An $85,950 Rademacher Excavating estimate to “install drive into lot [subject property 5033] and culvert pipe to get over creek with concrete head walls.”	Admitted

Respondent objected to the exhibits on the basis that they were not timely submitted one week prior to the evidentiary hearing. The objection was overruled, and Complainant’s Exhibits 1 through 13 were received into evidence.

Complainant argues that the value of the subject properties is impacted by the need for bridges; that when there is a hard rain, the subject properties cannot be accessed because Little Fox Creek rises and cannot be crossed; and that additional bridges to each of the subject properties is needed to cross another creek. Complainant also indicates that he has had the subject properties for sale for two years but has been unable to sell them.

4. Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent submitted the following exhibits:

Exhibit	Description	Ruling
Respondent 1.2	Board of Equalization Findings and Notice of Decision for subject property 5017, determining an appraised value of $88,500.	Admitted
Respondent 1.3	Board of Equalization Findings and Notice of Decision for subject property 5025, determining an appraised value of $72,700.	Admitted
Respondent 1.4	Board of Equalization Findings and Notice of Decision for subject property 5033, determining an appraised value of $73,500.	Admitted
Respondent 1.5	Board of Equalization Findings and Notice of Decision for subject property 5009, determining an appraised value of $70,500.	Admitted
Respondent 2	Two-page MARIS Matrix printout indicating the subject properties were listed as of December 31, 2018, for $390,000; as of May 30, 2019, for $350,000; as of June 1, 2020, for $349,900, and as of January 6, 2021, for $349,900.	Admitted
Respondent 3	Spreadsheet of price per acre calculation.	Admitted

Complainant did not object to any of the exhibits, and Respondent’s exhibits were received into evidence.

5. Value. For appeal numbers 19-10761, 19-10762, 19-10763,  and 19-10764, the TVM as of January 1, 2019, was $88,500, with an assessed value of $16,820; $72,700  with an assessed value of $13,810; $73,500 with an assessed value of $13,970; and $70,500 with an assessed value of $13,400, respectively.

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 valuations were erroneous and that his opinion of value was the TVM of the subject properties as of January 1, 2019. While Complainant’s testimony and Complainant’s Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 showed problems with road access to the subject properties during hard rains when the creeks rise, the evidence did not persuasively show the sporadic problems with access impacts the TVM of the subject properties. Complainant’s Exhibit 12 shows the cost to have Rademacher Excavating install a low bridge at Fox Creek Crossing, and Complainant’s Exhibits 9, 10, 11, and 13 show the cost to have Rademacher Excavating install a drive over the other creek to each of the subject properties. However, these estimates and related testimony do not persuasively show the TVM of the subject properties as of January 1, 2019. No expert testimony was offered by either party, and the correctness of the BOE valuation has not been rebutted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The BOE decisions are affirmed.  The TVM for appeal numbers 19-10761, 19-10762, 19-10763,  and 19-10764, of the subject properties as of January 1, 2019, was $88,500, with an assessed value of $ 16,820; $72,700  with an assessed value of $13,810; $73,500 with an assessed value of $13,970; and $70,500 with an assessed value of $13,400, respectively.[2]

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 November 19, 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 November 19, 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] 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.

[2] 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.