Holnam, Inc. v. Prior (Pike)

April 4th, 2002



Complainant, )


v. ) Appeal Number 99-78503





Respondent. )



Decision of the Pike County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor, SET ASIDE, Hearing Officer finds true value in money for the subject property for tax year 1999 to be $9,372,340, assessed value of $3,124,113.

Complainant appeared by Counsel, Thomas L. Caradonna, St. Louis, Missouri.

Respondent appeared by Counsel, Margaret M. Mooney, St. Louis, Missouri.

Case heard and decided by Chief Hearing Officer, W. B. Tichenor.


The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject personal property (furniture, computers, office equipment, machinery and industrial equipment) on January 1, 1999.


Complainant appeals the decision of the Pike County Board of Equalization which sustained the valuation of the subject property. The Assessor determined an appraised value of $23,559,510 (assessed value of $7,853,170, as personal property). A hearing was conducted on April 3, 2001, at the Pike County Courthouse, Bowling Green, Missouri. Counsel for each party submitted Briefs, Respondent filed Reply Brief with the Commission on October 11, 2001.

The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record and the arguments advanced by Counsel in their respective Briefs, enters the following Decision and Order.

Complainant’s Evidence

Complainant offered into evidence the appraisal report (Exhibit A) and written direct testimony (Exhibit B) of Allen D. Bealmear, ASA, CEA, President of MB Valuation Services. Exhibit C, a cost and sales comparison illustration of valuation referenced in the written direct testimony of Mr. Bealmear, was prefiled with Exhibit B. Exhibit D, a letter dated June 13, 2000, was submitted at the evidentiary hearing during rebuttal testimony by John O. Allen, Chief Plant Accountant for Complainant. All exhibits were receive into evidence. Mr. Bealmear and Mr. Allen were cross-examined by Respondent’s Counsel, and that testimony, as well as testimony in response to questions by the Hearing Officer, in redirect examination and in rebuttal constitutes part of the record in this appeal.

Mr. Bealmear presented his opinion of value for the property to be $9,372,340.

Respondent’s Evidence

Respondent offered the following exhibits into evidence.

Exhibit 2 Appraisal Report of Robert E. Owens, ASA.

Exhibit 2A Printout with description, appreciation or trending up factor to arrive at replacement cost new of personal property.

Exhibit 6 Qualifications of Robert E. Owens.

Exhibit 7 Qualifications of Michael C. Schmidt.

Exhibit 15 List of Complainant’s Fixed Assets as of December 31, 1998.

Exhibit 16 Complainant’s Personal Property Business Assessment list for 1999, including the amended version.

Exhibit 27 Brochure of Marshall and Stevens.

Exhibit 29 Written Direct Testimony of Mr. Owens.

All the exhibits were received into evidence.

Exhibits 1, 3-5, 8-14, 17-16 & 28 related to the valuation of real property which was the subject of Appeals 99-78504 thru 99-78507, said exhibits are not part of the record in this appeal.

Mr. Owens was cross-examined by Complainant’s Counsel and his testimony under cross-examination, in response to questions by the Hearing Officer and in redirect examination constitutes part of the record in this appeal.

Mr. Owens offered his opinion of value for the property to be $22,000,000.


1.    Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Pike County Board of Equalization.

2. The subject property consists of approximately 1,303 individual items of furniture, office machines and equipment, machinery, tools and manufacturing equipment, identified in 652 entries in Complainant’s appraisal report. The property is identified by the Respondent’s account number 2125 for tax year 1999. The property is located at Complainant’s facility on Highway 79, Clarksville, Missouri. These individual items of property make up and constitute the cement manufacturing operation of Complainant. A complete listing of the items of property under appeal is found in Exhibit A, pp. 1-66.

3. Complainant’s appraiser valued approximately 1289 of the items of property relying on comparative sales data, and 14 of the items (Items 3, 4, 73 (4), 110, 462, 469 (Lot), 493, 541, 577, 126 & 300 – Total appraised value of $1,221,000) relying on a discounted cost analysis or replacement cost new, less depreciation method. Exhibit A, pp. x-xi, pp. 1-66; Exhibit C.

4. Complainant’s appraiser valued the items of property based on the concept of fair market value – the estimated amount expressed in terms of money that may reasonably be expected for an item of property between a willing buyer and a willing seller with equity to both, neither under compulsion to buy or sell and both fully aware of all relevant facts. Exhibit A, p. iii, ix. Exhibit B, p. 6, Lines 9-16; p. 8, Line 18 – p. 9, Line 23. This is the appropriate concept of value to be applied in the valuation of the property. Respondent’s expert valued the property under the standard of value in use to Complainant. Tr. 51, Line 7 – Tr. 52, Line 19. This is not the appropriate concept of value to be applied in this appeal.

5. Personal property is valued based upon its true value in money. True value in money is value in exchange, not value in use or value installed. Value in use/installed may be, in a given case, the value in exchange if there is market data to so establish. There was no such market data presented in this appeal from which it could be established that value in use/installed was value in exchange.

6. Complainant’s appraiser conducted a personal inspection and inventory of the items of property being valued and confirmed that all of the items valued were at the particular facilities as of January 1, 2000. Exhibit A, p. ii, vi, vii-viii; Exhibit B, p. 6, Line 17 – p. 7, Line 12; Tr. 8, Lines 14-23. Respondent’s appraiser performed an inspection of the facility, but did not make an asset inventory of the property being valued, as is the appropriate manner in which an appraisal of machinery and equipment should be prepared. Tr. p. 62, Line 3 – p. 63, Line 4. Valuing Machinery and Equipment, Machinery and Technical Specialities Committee of the American Society of Appraisers, 2000, p. 215.

7. Complainant’s appraiser performed his appraisal in conformity with the Principles of Appraisal Practice and Code of Ethics of the American Society of Appraisers, and in conformity with the applicable standards of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). Exhibit A, p. iii, iv; Exhibit B, p. 22, Lines 2-24 & – p. 22.

8. The concept of highest and best use was considered by Complainant’s appraiser in his valuation of the subject property in accordance with Standard 7, Subsection 3(a) of USPAP. The subject items of furniture, machinery, tools and equipment were being utilized for the purpose designed by the manufacturer, and therefore were being utilized in the reasonably probable and legal use that is physically possible, appropriately supported and financially feasible, and resulted in the highest value in the appropriate marketplace. Exhibit A, pp. iv & vi; Exhibit B, p. 12, Line 25 – p. 13, Line 12. None of the items of machinery, tools and equipment have any special or unique characteristics which would require that they be valued as a unit or whole rather than individually. Exhibit B, p. 9, Line 24 – p. 10, Line 17.

9. The principle of substitution is that a prudent buyer will not pay more for a property than the cost of acquiring a substitute property of equivalent utility. The principle can be applied to either an individual asset or to an entire facility. The principle applies in either a cost, sales comparison or income approach. Valuing Machinery and Equipment, pp. 45, 115, supra; Appraising Machinery and Equipment, Machinery and Equipment Textbook Committee of the American Society of Appraisers, John Alico, Editor, 1989, p. 81.

10. Complainant’s appraiser relied upon the MB Data Base in his appraisal. The MB Data Base is made up of a multitude of research data sources, including purchase price new from a manufacturer, dealers’ asking and selling prices, auction sales and any other type of transaction which can be gathered. This data base is a large data resource computer program which has sales information posted to it daily of all kinds of equipment from the various sources. The database has the condition of items of sale machinery and equipment when it is known. The database identifies the type of sale, equipment being sold, date of sale, location of sale, and auctioneer from sale brochures on the various auctions. Information from the database can be sorted by categories of equipment type and model. Each equipment category has data posted which can then be retrieved for use in appraising such individual items of machinery and equipment. The sources utilized in the MB Data Base are sources that the appraiser is familiar with and that he has found to be reliable over his years of appraisal practice. The sources used in the data base are sources that are generally accepted by the appraisal community as reliable. Other appraisers use the MB Data Base as a resource in performing their appraisals. Exhibit A, p. xvii; Exhibit B, p. 17, Line 21 – p. 20, Line 10; Tr. 26, Lines 10-22; Tr. 36, Lines 5-25.

11. Complainant’s appraiser also utilized recognized pricing guides, sources and catalogues as research data sources. Contacts were made to manufacturers of various items of machinery and equipment being appraised. Exhibit A, p. xvii.

12. Complainant’s evidence was substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and to establish the true value in money of the subject property under appeal as of January 1, 2000, to be $9,372,340.

13. Respondent’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and to establish the true value in money of the subject property under appeal as of January 1, 2000, to be $22,000,000.



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.

Board of Equalization Presumption

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).

Standard for Valuation

Section 137.115, RSMo 1994, 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, at 897. True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not in terms of value in use. Equitable Life Assurance Society v. STC, 852 S.W.2d 376, 380 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993) citing Stephen & Stephen Properties v. STC, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973).

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.

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, 1999. Hermel, supra, 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).

Respondent’s Burden of Proof

In those instances where Respondent proposes a value different than that determined by the Board, the same burden to present substantial and persuasive evidence to establish the value proposed falls upon Respondent.

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, supra.

Trier of Fact

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).

Opinion Testimony by Experts

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 of 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 opinion or inferences upon the subject and must be otherwise reliable, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence. Section 490.065, RSMo; 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. W.D. 1992).


Complainant Proved Value

Complainant’s evidence presented an opinion of value based on the concept of fair market value or value in exchange. This concept of value as employed by Complainant’s appraiser presents a methodology which is proper, fair, not arbitrary, not capricious and is lawful under Missouri statutes, Commission regulations and case law. This is the recognized standard under Missouri case law. Section 138.430, RSMo. A listing of recent cases following this standard can be found at the end of this decision (End Note – hereinafter cited as P. D. George et al).

Valuing what a knowledgeable buyer and seller would give in exchange for the individual items of property and totaling the values avoids conjecture and speculation. Complainant’s appraisal clearly demonstrated that there is reliable sales data available on virtually all of the subject items (1,289 out of 1,303 total items of property – 98.93%). The sales data establishes the prices at which the various individual items of property are selling in the market. From such data, a clear indication of the value for the various pieces of machinery, tools and equipment can be developed.

Mr. Bealmear’s opinion of value is based upon reliable and appropriate data. He correctly valued the property relying upon the value in exchange concept recognized under Missouri case law, statutes, Commission regulations and decisions. His appraisal methodology and resulting final opinion are based upon a reasonable degree of appraisal standards certainty. Therefore, Complainant has met its burden of proof to establish the true value in money for the subject property as proposed.

Sales Data

The data relied upon by Mr. Bealmear demonstrates that the market for the hundreds of pieces of machinery, tools and equipment that comprise the subject property consists of all types of sales transactions, direct and indirect (direct sale – sale to ultimate end user; indirect sale – sale to used equipment dealer). The fact that some sales, or even a large number of the sales relied upon, are auction sales, either consignment, orderly liquidation or forced liquidation, does not render such sales invalid for developing an opinion of value. Such sales are not the same as forced sales for taxes or mortgage foreclosures in real property cases. The market world for items of machinery, tools and equipment consists of new equipment sales, recondition equipment sales, orderly liquidations, forced (bankruptcy) sales, excess equipment sales and auctions.

This diversity of types of transactions does not render use of data derived from such sales invalid or inappropriate. This market arena, with its mixed information base, is where real transactions occur each day. It is the responsibility of the appraiser when faced with an appraisal problem such as the present one, to explore and analyze this market arena to extract the most reliable data to utilize in his appraisal. It is the responsibility of the appraiser to make the appropriate upward or downward adjustments to such sales data to arrive at an opinion of value for the particular item of property being valued.

Such adjustments are made in large part based on the experience which the individual appraiser is able to bring to bear in a given appraisal assignment. Complainant’s appraiser made appropriate adjustments for the various types of sales which were utilized in the appraisal relying upon his education, training and experience. Mr. Bealmear is a well trained and experienced appraiser having more than 28 years of experience in valuing machinery, tools and equipment. Furthermore, his firm is able to rely upon the vast experience of other appraisers (Larry L. Perdue, ASA, M.V.S., 12 years appraisal experience) and their education, training and experience, as well as a trained research staff which provides assistance in data collection and analysis. Exhibit A, p 81; Exhibit B, p. 18, Line 4 – p. 20, Line 5. The staff of MB Valuation Services monitors sales of machinery and equipment by on-site attendance at the sale. Questionnaires are filled out regarding information relating to the number of attendants, number of active bidders, type of bidders (end users or used equipment dealers), conduct of auctioneers, handling of the crowd, and the weather. These are all factors which could affect the results of the sale. The information for sales is entered into the databank in order that relevant factors can be considered when adjustments are made to comparables. Tr. 26, Lines 10-22.

If there is another market arena where sales of the multitude of individual items which comprise the subject property in this appeal sell together in an assembled manner, then it would, of course, be appropriate for the appraiser to explore, investigate and analyze the sales which occur in that market. It would, in fact, be his responsibility to do so in order to arrive at an appropriate opinion of value. However, there is no evidence in this record of such a market.

In the absence of such evidence, it would amount to pure speculation and conjecture for either the appraiser or this Hearing Officer to attempt to arrive at a valuation of the subject property under such a hypothetical market condition. Accordingly, the evidence of sales brought forward by Mr. Bealmear is substantial and persuasive evidence as to what the hundreds of items of machinery, tools and equipment which make up the subject property are selling for in the only market for which evidence was presented

The experience and record of the Commission in addressing valuation of machinery, tools and equipment in more than twenty separate appeals (P. D. George, et al, infra) has clearly shown, without any contradictory evidence, that the auction market is a major component of the arena in which used machinery, tools and equipment are bought and sold throughout the United States. Nothing was presented in the present appeal which demonstrates in any way, shape or form that there is another market arena, level of trade for used machinery and equipment, from which Mr. Bealmear should have drawn sales data. The data base which is utilized by Mr. Bealmear in addition to information received from transactions at auctions also includes used equipment dealer’s asking and selling prices.

Willing Seller/Willing Buyer and Machinery and Equipment Auctions

The definition of fair market value (true value in money – Section 137.115, RSMo) utilized by the experts for both parties in this appeal is the estimated amount expressed in terms of money that may reasonably be expected for an item of property between a willing buyer and a willing seller with equity to both, neither under compulsion to buy or sell and both fully aware of all relevant facts. Respondent’s appraiser defined fair market value only slightly differently (the price which the property would bring from a willing buyer when offered for sale by a willing seller – Exhibit 2, p. 2). In other words, in attempting to value a given item of machinery or even an assembled group of machinery and equipment a hypothetical sale between a willing buyer and seller, of the property being valued, is assumed in order to establish the standard of value. In some minds, this translates to a prohibition against the use of any sales data which does not also involve a willing seller and a willing buyer or that per se any auction sale is inappropriate and cannot be used. Such a conclusion is in error.

In the field of real estate appraisal, appraisers do not rely upon tax sales as a comparable sale. In most instances, a mortgage foreclosure sale of real estate would not be utilized as a comparable sale. In both cases the seller is not considered to be a willing seller. In addition, however, there are other factors which weigh against using a tax or foreclosure sale in real estate appraisals. In a tax sale, all that is being sought is recovery of taxes owed and expenses of the sale. In a foreclosure sale, recovery of the outstanding debt and expenses of sale is what is being sought. In tax and foreclosure real estate sales, the exposure to the market is greatly limited, consisting of generally a legal notice in the local newspaper and posted at the courthouse. Furthermore, in real estate appraisal there is generally sufficient market data outside of tax and foreclosure sales from which sales data can be extracted.

In the realm of machinery and equipment auctions there are significant differences from real estate tax or foreclosure auctions. If a machinery and equipment auction involves a bankruptcy, the bankrupt owner is, of course, being forced to sell. However, the trustee in bankruptcy is under an obligation to protect creditors by obtaining the best price possible when assets are sold. The record in this appeal and in other similar cases (P. D. George, infra), which have come before the Commission, clearly and convincingly establishes that vast amounts of various machinery, tools and equipment used in a multitude of manufacturing operations and facilities are bought and sold on a continuing basis throughout the nation in auction sales. This is a recognized level of trade for used machinery and equipment which can be utilized in valuing machinery and equipment. Valuing Machinery and Equipment, Chapter 4 – Sales Comparison Approach, pp. 115-155.

The very nature of a machinery and equipment auction is for the entity conducting the auction to expose the items to be sold to as large a group of buyers as possible through the advertising of the sale. The auctioneer is motivated to obtain the highest sale price possible, since compensation to the auctioneer is based upon a percentage of sale price. This is the case whether the sale involves a forced liquidation or not. In other words, the auctioneer does not seek to get a lower price for sale items simply because there may be a forced liquidation.

In many states, there is a Deceptive Trade Practice Act which prohibits public offerings of machinery and equipment for sale without disclosing everything the seller knows about the property. For the most part, auctioneers and sellers know the equipment being sold and they are aware if there is anything wrong with it. Sellers at auctions disclose if a machine is only a partial machine, without certain components or whether it was considered scrap or in poor condition. Bidders are also aware of such conditions. They do not buy out of ignorance.

There is no evidence to even suggest that buyers at an auction will bid lower if it is a bankruptcy sale as opposed to a sale of excess machinery or a sale simply due to a plant closing. Basic reasoning establishes that bidding by potential buyers is not tied in any logical fashion to the seller’s motivation or circumstances which brought about the sale. Buyers at an auction, like buyers in any other sales arena, seek to buy at the lowest price. Auctioneers as the selling agent for the seller are seeking the highest price. Competing buyers increase the sale price by bidding against each other.

Any sale, auction or otherwise, of a given piece of machinery is valid to use as a comparable sale for a like piece of machinery if proper adjustments are made. Adjustments to comparable sales, whether in real property or personal property appraisals, are what brings the comparable to reflect market value and make the appropriate comparison to the subject. There is no set formula for each type of adjustment which might be made to a sale price for a given piece of machinery. It is not possible nor practical to set up a sales grid for each item of machinery and equipment in which the subject item of machinery or equipment would be compared to 4, 6, 8 or a dozen like items of property and each one adjusted on the various possible points of comparability for machinery and equipment. (See, Valuing Machinery and Equipment, Elements of Comparability, pp. 120-122). The adjustments which are required to be made are a product of the appraiser’s training and experience. Mr. Bealmear made adjustments to bring the sales data to the fair market value standard. Exhibit B, p. 18, Lines 6 – 13; Tr. 22, Line 1-23; Tr. 32, Line 23 – Tr. 33, Line 17.

The credentials, testimony and other evidence on this record demonstrate that Mr. Bealmear is quite knowledgeable and experienced in the various elements of comparability which would need to be considered for making adjustments and conducting a proper appraisal. His testimony substantiated that in performing his appraisal he made relevant inquiries related to the subject items of machinery and equipment that are ordinarily and properly made. He had available, through his own research or that of his staff, essential and appropriate information relative to the sales used for comparison in the appraisal. In summary, it is reasonable to conclude that the Bealmear appraisal was conducted in such a manner as to be in accordance with the general frame work and guidelines one would expect for such an appraisal. Valuing Machinery and Equipment, supra, Chapter 4.

Principle of Substitution

Sales Comparison Approach

The valuation of the subject property by Complainant’s expert is in accordance with the principle of substitution for these particular assets. A well informed buyer will not pay more for items of property than the amount such property will command in a market with sufficient demand. Mr. Bealmear found sufficient sales to value nearly every single piece of machinery and equipment by the sales comparison approach. His appraisal demonstrates a market with sufficient demand for the various items of manufacturing property being valued in this appeal. The Bealmear illustrations and supporting data (Exhibit C) show that he generally had three or more sales of items of machinery and equipment to use to arrive at an indicated value for each of the 1,289 items of machinery and equipment valued under the sales comparison approach. The Hearing Officer concludes from the testimony of the expert that there were in all likelihood a larger number than 3 to 8 sales for many of the individual items, however, the appraiser selected those sales which were most like the subject item being valued. Exhibit B, p. 19, Lines 7-12.

The sales information utilized by Mr. Bealmear demonstrates what informed buyers are paying for the various items of machinery and equipment. One of the strengths of drawing from such sales data is that the appraiser is dealing with actual transactions for the purchase of like machinery, whether by an end user or a used equipment dealer for resale. Actual sales data provides a firm foundation from which the trained and experienced appraiser can make appropriate adjustments to arrive at an opinion of what price the item of property being valued would demand in an open and active market.

Cost Approach

In those few instances (14 items of machinery), where Complainant’s expert was unable to find adequate sales of machinery and equipment, he arrived at an opinion of value using the cost approach. In developing his cost approach, Mr. Bealmear would obtain the replacement cost new as of the effective date for the appraisal (valuation date – January 1, 1999) from the manufacturer of the particular item of machinery or equipment. If the appraiser was unable to obtain a replacement cost new from the manufacturer, he would attempt to determine the date of acquisition and purchase price and make appropriate adjustments for the difference in time between its original purchase and the valuation date. From the replacement cost new, either obtained from the manufacturer or calculated from original acquisition costs, deductions were made for physical, functional and economic obsolescence. Exhibit A, p. 10; Exhibit B, p. 14, Line 13 – p. 16, Line 22.

The adjustment for physical depreciation is made based upon the actual inspection of each item of machinery and equipment and discussions with plant personnel, if necessary, regarding the physical condition. Functional depreciation can be anything such as a different model from which would be purchased new, difference in speed, capacity, type of controls, energy consumption, technological changes or any other factor which might be considered an obsolescence factor when compared to a new piece of equipment. Economic obsolescence is a deduction that is made for factors which affect the value of an item of machinery outside of the specific piece of property. It could include style of machine, demand for specific equipment or demand for the product which the machine produces or other factors outside the given machine. The appraiser can contact the manufacturer to investigate demand for a given piece of equipment to determine economic obsolescence. It can also be calculated by looking at equipment of a similar type and comparing the market price for such equipment to the cost new to calculate economic obsolescence where physical and functional obsolescence are known. Information available to Mr. Bealmear through his data sources provides information from the market to assist in adjusting for the three types of obsolescence in performing his cost approach. Exhibit A, p. 10; Exhibit B, p. 14, Line 13 – p. 17, Line 8; The cost methodology employed by Mr. Bealmear for the limited number of items valued under this approach appears to be within the parameters and guidelines for developing a cost approach as applicable in this appraisal problem generally recognized by the machinery and equipment appraisal community. Valuing Machinery and Equipment, supra, Chapter 3, pp. 45-113.

Respondent’s Valuation Not Persuasive

Appraisal Methodology

The starting point for any proper appraisal of machinery and equipment is to inventory the property. A determination of exactly what makes up the property that is being valued is critical in the valuation process, irrespective of whether the appraiser is going to employ the cost or market approach to value. It is not enough to simply inspect or do a walk through of the facility where the machinery and equipment is located. An inspection of each item of office furniture and equipment, computer equipment, machinery and manufacturing equipment is also necessary in order for the appraiser to determine physical condition of items of property.

Utilizing an accounting asset ledger is not the same as performing an inventory of the property to be appraised. Account asset ledgers are prepared and maintained for different reasons than to provide a fair market value for the personal property as of a given date for ad valorem tax purposes. Respondent’s appraiser, Robert E. Owens, did not perform an inventory of the property under appeal, an analysis of the condition of each item of property valued or a visual inspection of each item of property. Tr. 53, Lines 3-8; Tr. 62, Line 3 – Tr. 63, Line 4. This is only one of the defects in the appraisal methodology employed by Mr. Owens.

Mass Valuation Appraisal

Mr. Owens elected to perform, what is for all intents and purposes, a mass valuation of the subject property relying on trending of original costs and set depreciation factors for each year and various categories of the subject property. Exhibit 2, Addenda pp. 1-24; Exhibit 2A. This methodology was relied upon even though the appraiser concurred that the market approach to value measures the fair market value in exchange of a specific item of property. Tr. 63, Lines 11-13.

In performing his valuation, Mr. Owens relied upon the asset list shown by Exhibit 15 to value the property under appeal. In conducting his valuation of the subject property, Mr. Owens did not determine, from the market, what it would cost to replace each individual item of personal property new as of January 1, 2000, nor what it would cost to replace the assembled furniture, fixtures, office machines, computers, computer peripheral equipment, manufacturing equipment, etc. He did not make a specific analysis and determination of physical, functional or economic depreciation or obsolescence for each item of property or for the assembled items of property. He did not perform an market analysis or study relative to the depreciation factors utilized but essentially relied upon an age/life depreciation calculation. In the appraiser’s own words he valued the asset record. Tr. 80, Lines 15-16; Tr. 106, Lines 10-18. Valuing the asset record falls far short of a substantial and persuasive methodology to arrive at fair market value.

Proper Cost Methodology

The proper methodology for developing an estimate of value relying on the cost approach starts with a determination of replacement cost new for an item of property as of the date of valuation. The next step is to address the issue of physical depreciation for the item of property and make an appropriate deduction. Physical depreciation is not simply a result of the age of an item of machinery or equipment. Visual inspection provides the trained appraiser with valuable information upon which to determine an appropriate amount to be applied to account for the actual physical condition of each item of property.

Respondent’s appraiser made no attempt to make individual adjustments for the physical condition of the various items of machinery and equipment. Tr. 61, Line 22 – Tr. 62, Line 2. He could, of course, not done so since he had not inventoried and physically inspected each item of furniture and fixtures, machinery and equipment and rolling stock. He quite simply applied a set physical depreciation factor based upon year of acquisition, irrespective of the actual physical condition of any item of property. For example, all machinery purchased in 1968 and all prior years was found to be 10% good of its trended acquisition cost. All machinery purchased in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 was 15% good, all 1992 machinery was 52% good, all 1993 machinery was 57% good and so on for each given year of acquisition. Exhibit 2A. No market data was even proffered through the Owens’ appraisal to support these arbitrary percentages. Nor was any market data presented which would demonstrate that all items of machinery purchased in a given year both trended and depreciated at the same rate. No such evidence was presented because the appraiser didn’t perform any market analysis, he simply valued an asset list.

Functional obsolescence for the property must also be analyzed and an adjustment made for this factor. Functional obsolescence goes beyond whether the item of equipment performs the task for which it was designed. The experienced appraiser will investigate as to new designs for given pieces of equipment to determine if advancements have been made in more recent models that would render the subject piece of machinery outmoded in some manner. If this is the case, then an appropriate adjustment should be made. Mr. Owens’ appraisal asserts no indication of functional obsolescence. However, no investigation and examination of manufacturers of the various items of machinery and equipment was performed by the appraiser so as to determine if there had been technological advancements for given items of machinery and equipment. Mr. Owens did admit that such an analysis would be important, however, he elected to not perform the analysis. Tr. 54, Line 2 – Tr. 55, Line 7.

Essentially, Mr. Owens appraised the subject facility and found the facility not to be subject to functional obsolescence, rather than considering each individual item of machinery and equipment. Exhibit 2, pp. 14-15. However, there was no hard market data presented, since no investigation was made by the appraiser, relative to the entire assembled facility of personal property from which a determination and conclusion could be made and supported that the Complainant’s facility does not suffer from some degree and level of functional obsolescence. Mr. Owens admitted that the subject facility being a wet process cement plant was not a state-of-the-art operation that would be built the same way in 1999 as it was in 1967, when it was originally constructed. Tr. 53, Lines 9-23.

Finally, the matter of economic obsolescence must be considered and investigated so that a proper adjustment can be made. Valuing Machinery and Equipment, supra, Chapter 3, p. 45. Here again, like with the element of functional obsolescence, Mr. Owens essentially determined no economic obsolescence in the subject facility, rather than performing an analysis of economic obsolescence which would impact on given items of machinery and equipment. Since the appraiser was, for all intents and purposes, looking at the economic obsolescence of the in place facility, it was incumbent upon him to research relative to external economic factors which would impact upon the Clarksville operation. This was not done, even though the appraiser admitted that certain external factors could have an economic impact upon the facility. Tr. 55, Line 11 – Tr. 56, Line 6.

Good market research of sales of individual items of machinery and equipment would have provided a data base from which the appraiser could seek to make adjustments for depreciation beyond physical condition if he was determined to rely upon a cost approach. Of course, locating of sales of comparable machinery would provide good market data to arrive at an opinion of value without relying upon a mass costing methodology. Relying on actual sales of comparable machinery and equipment eliminates the need to speculate as to an appropriate trending index to be applied to original cost. Relying on actual sales of comparable machinery and equipment eliminates the need to speculate as to an appropriate depreciation rate to be applied to a trended original cost.

Trending in Cost Approach

Respondent’s methodology is further unpersuasive due to its variance from accepted appraisal practice. The trending factors were applied by Mr. Owens to original cost. Trending is applied not to the original cost but to the historical cost. Historical cost is the cost of a property when first placed in service by its first owner. Original cost is the actual cost of a property when acquired by the present owner. In some instances historical and original cost may, of course, be the same. Valuing Machinery and Equipment, supra, Chapter 3, p. 62. Mr. Owens made no effort to establish if the cost to acquire of the individual items of property was the historical or original cost.

Trending can easily lead to errors in valuation. Trending does not give replacement cost new, but reproduction cost. It does not provide a means to measure the difference between reproduction cost new and replacement cost new. Trending is to only be applied to historical cost. The appraiser must establish that the cost being trended is the actual historical cost and not a cost resulting from a prior allocation of purchase price or used cost. Historical cost to be trended may not be the typical cost, but may include or exclude cost factors that must be considered and accounted for in a given appraisal problem. Trending of used cost is improper. Trending factors are based on averages but the specific property being valued may differ from the average. Trending for periods in excess of ten years should not be employed unless confirmation can be made by other methods of estimating cost new. The appraiser should know the basics of how the trending index was developed. Valuing Machinery and Equipment, supra, Chapter 3, pp. 62-64. The record in this appeal provides nothing to demonstrate that any of these concerns are addressed in any manner by the trending/depreciation schedules employed by Respondent’s appraiser. Mr. Owens knew nothing relative to how the trending (index) factors had been developed. He had not performed any market analysis or studies to verify or confirm the validity and reliability of the trending factors. Tr. 47, Line 19 – Tr. 48, Line 3; Tr. 50, Line 15 – Tr. 51, Line 6. This results in the methodology as applied being unsubstantial and non-persuasive to establish the value proposed.

Depreciation Factors

The depreciation factors relied upon by Mr. Owens were not demonstrated in any manner to be market derived. The depreciation factors used were only reflecting physical depreciation without any consideration as to the actual physical condition of any given item of property. The physical depreciation factors were based entirely upon life expectancy of the items of property, with a base amount of 10% good for any items of machinery and equipment that had reached their life expectancy. No market analysis was performed by the appraiser to determine life expectancies or percentage of depreciation for any of the various classes of property under appeal. Tr. 56, Line 14 – Tr. 62, Line 2.

Unpersuasiveness of Mass Valuation Methodology in Contested Cases

Mass valuation of personal property under a standard set of depreciation schedules is used for purposes of reassessment throughout the state, especially when dealing with the machinery and equipment which makes up a manufacturing facility. Due to the multitude of items of personal property and the individual personal property accounts in any given county it is not possible, nor practical for the assessor to perform an individual appraisal on each manufacturing facility for purposes of his annual personal property assessment. Therefore, the mass valuation methodology whereby the assessor multiplies the total acquisition costs for a given year times a set depreciation amount (percent good) for each year to arrive at an indicated true value in money is an appropriate tool to use for valuing office furniture, computer equipment and manufacturing machinery and equipment. However, once the issue of valuation has moved to an appeal before the Commission, the mass valuation approach, absent market derived supporting evidence, will generally lack the qualities of substantial and persuasive evidence to establish value. This is especially true in the face of an appraisal of the property under appeal based upon market data in the development of sales comparison and cost approaches.

Mr. Owens’ methodology is only a step removed from the type of mass valuation generally performed by assessors throughout the state for their initial valuation based on personal property declaration returns. Mr. Owens, instead of simply totaling the acquisition costs for each given year for the various categories of machinery and equipment and then trending up and depreciating down, relied upon an item by item listing of original cost. However, the methodology is exactly the same. Acquisition cost trended the same for a given year and that resulting amount depreciated the same for the given year. Such a valuation can easily be performed at a desk without the need of even viewing the property being valued. Such a valuation consists quite simply of multiplying figures – Acquisition Cost x Trending Factor x Depreciation Percent Good = Indicated Value.

The methodology utilized by Respondent’s appraiser does not fit within the proper and recognized cost approach. The cost approach relied upon by Respondent starts with original costs and allegedly trends the cost to estimate current replacement cost and then makes a deduction only for the element of physical depreciation. Under this trending/physical depreciation of original costs all machinery and equipment of the same category purchased in a given year is trended and depreciated at exactly the same rate. This is true irrespective of whether the item of machinery and equipment is an arc welder, radial arm saw, air compressor, hoist, bench grinder or an engine lathe (all items of machinery and equipment included in the subject property). Such a form of valuation totally ignores that the market may in point of fact demonstrate that different items of machinery and equipment purchased in the same year would inflate in value and depreciate at totally different rates.

The mass valuation technique has been presented in various contested cases before the Commission (See, P. D. George, et al, infra). It has failed to reach the level of substantial and persuasive evidence in each instance. The reason the method is not persuasive in a contested case is quite simple. There is no hard market data to demonstrate and support the validity and soundness of the underlying figures used in the mathematical calculations. As has been discussed above (See, Proper Cost Methodology, Trending in Cost Approach, Depreciation Factors, supra,), the critical factors which go into the math equation are unsupported by the market.

The entire exercise of using a set of factors for trending and another set of depreciation factors is unnecessary in the vast majority of appeals, since it has been demonstrated time and time again that there is an active user to user (direct) and user to dealer (indirect) market for the vast majority of machinery and equipment that is found in virtually every type of manufacturing facility. (See, P. D. George, et al, infra). Sales from this market can be adjusted to arrive at a market based indication of value. Furthermore, the appropriate and proper methodology, if a party seeks to rely upon the cost approach, is to obtain replacement cost new from the market and then adjust for physical depreciation based upon actual observation of each item of property and adjusted for functional and economic obsolescence derived from appropriate market investigation and data.

Reliance upon acquisition costs, whether historic or original, as the starting point of a valuation exercise in a contested case and a table of trending and depreciation factors in the face of actual sales data does not reach the level of substantial and persuasive evidence to establish value. It matters little what was paid for an item of equipment five or six years prior to tax date, when one can go to the market and find a sufficient number of actual sales for the item to demonstrate the present value. This procedure (investigation and research of the present market) eliminates any level of speculation and conjecture as to whether the trended and then depreciated acquisition cost is reflective of market value.

Other Deficiencies of Owens’ Appraisal

In addition to the flaws and defects present in the appraisal of Mr. Owens, which have been addressed above, other errors and shortcomings are also present which render his conclusion of value as unpersuasive. By way of example the following illustrations will demonstrate various errors which directly impact upon the credibility to be afforded the Owens appraisal and the resulting opinion of value.

1. Valuation of personal computers which the appraiser had not confirmed were at the Complainant’s facility and which were in excess of five years old, when the policy of Complainant was a three year turnover of personal computers, without making inquiry as to what if any policy on computer replacement and disposal Complainant might have. Exhibit 2, pp. 1 & 2; Tr. 63, Line 17 – Tr. 66, Line 13; Tr. 144, Line 9 – Tr. 145, Line 10.

2. Valuation of critical spares (motors, speed reducers, breakers, etc.) which originally cost $428,766, purchased during the years 1973 through 1980, at $927,200 as of January 1, 1999, without making appropriate inquiry as to whether the critical spares had been used up or attached to a piece of machinery or were still available and ready for use. Exhibit 2, p. 2; Tr. 66, Line 14 – Tr. 68, Line 23; Tr. 106, Lines 1-9.

3. Valuation of furniture and fixtures and other items without having any personal knowledge of what was actually being valued. Exhibit 2, p. 3; Tr. 68, Line 24 – Tr. 70, Line 2; Tr. 80, Lines 15-19.

4. Valuation of a telephone paging system as machinery and equipment and trending and depreciating same as machinery and equipment, instead of as furniture and fixtures and trending and depreciating it as furniture and fixtures and without making appropriate inquiries relative to whether the paging system was manufacturing equipment or office equipment. Exhibit 2A, p. 18; Exhibit 2, p. 11; Tr. 81, Line 13 – Tr. 82, Line 13; Tr. 134, Lines 6-13.

5. Valuation of manufacturing machinery listed as acquired in 1961, although the subject plant was not built until 1967 and not making sufficient inquiry and investigation as to these matters. Exhibit 2, p. 3; Tr. 70, Lines 3-22.

6. Valuation of lighting as manufacturing machinery and equipment without being able to identify whether the given item of property was in fact personal property or part of the real property and without making proper inquiry to insure that the items should not be considered as real estate fixtures and not personal property. Exhibit 2, p. 3; Tr. 70, Line 23 – Tr. 71, Line 19; Tr. 132, Lines 3-23; Tr. 136, Line 20 – Tr. 137, Line 22.

7. Valuation of kiln blowers and kiln fans as personal property when the kiln, with it’s attached and supporting equipment, was valued as real property by stipulation of the parties. Exhibit 2, p. 4; Tr. 73, Line 24 – Tr. 75, Line 3; Tr. 132, Line 24 – Tr. 133, Line 10; Tr. 137, Line 23 – Tr. 139, Line 13.

8. Valuation of the personal property in place/in use to Complainant without researching the market for sales of assembled, in place personal property similar to the subject to establish that an in use value would equate to fair market value in exchange. Tr. 106, Lines 13-16; Tr. 109, Line 22 – Tr. 110, Line 3.

9. Valuation of the personal property as installed, with freight, installation, taxes, engineering and design costs included, without doing any market analysis to determine that the market would in fact support the trended up, depreciated down value calculated from the indexes and factors utilized for the addition of the direct and indirect costs. Tr. 51, Line 7 – Tr. 52, Line 19.

10. Valuation of approximately 1,029 items of furniture, fixtures, computers, office equipment, machinery and rolling stock without doing an inventory but only a walk through of the Complainant’s facility in approximately four hours on a single day. Exhibit 2, pp. 1-18; Tr. 94, Line 15 – Tr. 96, Line 25; Exhibit D; Tr. 134, Line 25 – Tr. 136, Line 16.

This collective group of errors, mistakes, omisions, and miscalculations, coupled with the other defects previously discussed above, results in the appraisal of Mr. Owens being fatally flawed for purposes of establishing value in the present appeal. The valuation exercise of Mr. Owens demonstrates in a clear and detailed manner the inherent dangers and innate weaknesses which exist in taking an accounting ledger and substituting it for an actual, real life, detailed inventory of furniture, fixtures, computers, machinery and equipment. Furthermore, the Owens exercise illustrates the intrinsic frailties which exist in multiplying arbitrary trending indexes and depreciation factors without proper research of the market to provide substantiation and a foundation for such indexes and factors.

Expert Testimony

A determination of value in a personal property case involving items of machinery and equipment rests to a very large extent on evidence presented by the expert witnesses. Where specialized knowledge will assist the hearing officer to understand evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness with necessary knowledge, skill, experience, training and education may testify as an expert. Section 490.065, RSMo. The issue of valuation of machinery and equipment calls for expert testimony in the form of an appraisal and direct and cross-examinations. In the present appeal a witness for each side was tendered as an expert in valuation of the property under appeal.

Complainant’s Expert

Complainant’s expert, Allen D. Bealmear, brings extensive education, training and experience to the performance of his appraisal assignment. He has in excess of twenty-eight years of appraisal experience. He has performed appraisal and research assignments relating to machinery and equipment in industrial plants in a variety of different industries. Mr. Bealmear has testified as an expert witness in Federal Bankruptcy Courts and tax courts in various states and before the State Tax Commission of Missouri on approximately twenty occasions. Exhibit A, p. 80 & Exhibit B, p. 5, Line 9 – p. 6, Line 8.

Mr. Bealmear was assisted in his appraisal of the subject property by Larry L. Perdue, ASA and M.V.S. His experience in appraisal of machinery and equipment in industrial plants is similar to that of Mr. Bealmear. Exhibit A, p. 81.

Weight Accorded Evidence

The Hearing Officer as trier of the facts is responsible for the weighing of the evidence presented. The Hearing Officer has the duty to evaluate the evidence presented to determine the sufficiency and persuasiveness of the evidence in establishing market value. One of the critical factors in weighing and evaluating evidence is the education, training and experience of the experts who testify on the issue of value.

The Hearing Officer cannot simply turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the Complainant’s evidence as developed and presented by a recognized expert in the field of machinery and equipment valuation. The Bealmear appraisal comes within the standards of both the Commission rule (12 CSR 30-3.065(2)) and American Society of Appraisers guidelines (Valuing Machinery and Equipment, supra) for rendering a persuasive opinion of value. The evidence on this record which is possessed of both substantial and persuasive weight is the opinion of value developed by the Bealmear appraisal. This is so because of the following factors:

1. Mr. Bealmear possesses the necessary credentials to establish his expert status for performing both a proper cost approach and a proper market approach to arrive at an opinion of value.

2. The various items of furniture, computer and manufacturing equipment are regularly traded in the used machinery and equipment market as evidenced by the fact that comparable sales data was available on 98.93% of the total items being valued in this appeal (1289/1303 = .9893%).

3. Complainant’s appraisal valued the items of machinery and equipment on the basis that they will continue to be utilized for the specific purpose or function for which each is designed. The property was not valued on a salvage or scrap basis. The appraiser recognized that the machinery and equipment will continue to be used in a manufacturing process, as evidence by the reliance on sales of comparable machinery and equipment that is bought and sold to be used in an on going manufacturing operation.

4. Complainant’s valuation was based upon generally accepted appraisal methodology and practice for furniture, computers, machinery and equipment such as comprise the personal property under appeal, relying upon appropriately developed sales and cost data.

5. No evidence was presented, derived from and/or supported by market transactions, which would establish that the subject property would sell for a value greater than that determined under Complainant’s cost and sales comparison approaches.

6. Respondent’s mass cost methodology, valuing the subject property under an in use to Complainant standard, failed to demonstrate or establish that such a methodology provides a reliable and persuasive indication of market value and was for all practical purposes countered by Complainant’s evidence of value so as to render Respondent’s approach to value as unsubstantial and unpersuasive.


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

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 1999 is set at $3,124,113.

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 1994.

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 Pike 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 April 4, 2002.


W. B. Tichenor

Chief Hearing Officer



The following is a list of recent appeals which have addressed the issue of valuing of machinery, tools and equipment in various manufacturing facilities in various counties.

P. D. George v. Daly, STC Appeal 97-20316, March 21, 2000, Order Granting Application for Review, August 10, 2000, (Daly v. P. D. George Co., Cause No. 004-2046, Circuit Court City of St. Louis, April 24, 2001);

St. Clair Die Casting v. Overschmidt, STC Appeal 99-57024, 5/3/00;

Rexam v. Overschmidt, STC Appeal 99-57025, 5/3/00;

Bull Moose Tube Co. v Overschmidt, STC Appeals 99-57027 & 99-57028, 5/3/00;

Angeles Group, Inc. v. Overschmidt, STC Appeal 99-57029, 5/3/00;

Ducoa v. Tunnell, STC Appeal 99-65000, 5/5/00;

St. Louis Post-Dispatch v. Daly, STC Appeal 99-20261, 1/29/01;

Nordyne, Inc. v. Daly, STC Appeal 99-20263 (1/29/01);

Lincoln Industrial v. Daly, STC Appeal 99-20264, 1/29/01;

Boxes, Inc. v. Daly, STC Appeal 99-20265, 1/29/01;

P. D. George v. Daly, STC Appeal No. 99-20262, 2/2/01;

Sunline Brands v. Daly, STC Appeal 99-20269, 4/30/01;

Alumax Foils, Inc. v. Daly, STC Appeal 99-20270; 4/30/01;

St. Clair Die Casting Company v. Overschmidt, STC Appeal 00-57002, 5/16/01;

Rexam Containers v. Overschmidt, STC Appeal No. 00-57003, 5/16/01;

Bull Moose Tube Company v. Overschmidt, STC Appeals No. 00-57004 & 00-57005, 5/16/01;

Lowell Manufacturing Co. v. Overschmidt, STC Appeal 00-57006, 5/16/01.

Warner-Jenkinson v. Daly, STC Appeal 99-20267, 8/8/01.

Watlow Industries v. Ruhl, STC Appeal 00-81000, 8/8/01.

VonWeise Gear v. Overschmidt, STC Appeal 00-57001, 8/8/01.

Pohlman, Inc. v. Gogarty, STC Appeal 00-10023, 9/6/01.

Nestle USA, Inc. v. Gogarty, STC Appeals 00-10006, 00-10007 & 00-10008, 10/4/01.

Leonards Metal, Inc. v. Zimmerman, STC Appeals 00-33002 & 00-33003, 11/6/01.

Ambassador Envelope Co. v. Zimmerman, STC Appeal 00-33004, 11/6/01.

Pohlman, Inc. v. Zimmerman, STC Appeal 00-33006, 11/6/01.

Solar Press, Inc. v. White, STC Appeal 00-77000, 11/29/01.