Linda Macke v. Brent Johnson, Assessor, Greene County

April 22nd, 2022

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

LINDA MACKE, )

)

)

)

)

Appeal No. 21-33000

Parcel/locator No(s): 1216302008

Complainant(s), )
)
v. )
)
BRENT JOHNSON, ASSESSOR,

GREENE, COUNTY, MISSOURI,

)

)

Respondent. )

ORDER AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIE 

HOLDING

On January 14, 2022, State Tax Commission (STC) Senior Hearing Officer Erica Gage (Hearing Officer) entered a Decision and Order (Decision) affirming the decision of the Greene County Board of Equalization (BOE)[1].  Linda Macke (Complainant) timely filed an Application for Review of the Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer.  Brent  Johnson, Assessor, Greene County, Missouri, (Respondent) timely filed a Response.

We AFFIRM the Decision of the Hearing Officer. Segments of the Hearing Officer’s Decision may have been incorporated into our Order without further reference.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The subject property is identified by Parcel Locator No. 1216302008. The subject property is further identified as being located at 854 N Burton Ave, Springfield, Greene County, Missouri. The subject property consists of a parcel of residential real property improved by asingle familyhome.The home has a two car garage and a fenced backyard.

Respondent classified the subject property as residential and determined the TVM on January 1, 2021, was $133,800. Complainant appealed to the BOE, which classified the subject property as residential and independently determined the TVM on January 1, 2021, was $120,900, thereby lowering Respondent’s valuation.

Complainant timely appealed to the STC alleging that the BOE’s valuation was correct but that the subject property was subject to discrimination because Respondent had valued her property higher than other residential properties in Complainant’s neighborhood.  Following an evidentiary hearing in which only Complainant presented evidence, the Hearing Officer issued the Decision and Order affirming the BOE’s decision and finding Complainant did not prove discrimination in assessment of the subject property.

Complainant timely filed an Application for Review.  The STC thereafter issued its Order allowing the Application for Review and granting Respondent time to file a Response.  Respondent timely filed his Response.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Complainants’ Point on Review

In her Application for Review, Complainant acknowledges that the subject property might have been valued at $120,900 due to improvements to the property, including a living room remodel, but argues that she was treated unfairly by a neighbor and his attorneys during a dispute over the subject property’s boundary line.    

In his Response, Respondent argues that the Hearing Officer’s Decision should be affirmed because Complainant did not carry her burden of proof relative to her claim, i.e., presented no evidence that discrimination in assessment of the subject property occurred, and because the STC, an administrative tribunal with limited authority, lacks statutory authority to resolve boundary disputes between neighbors, which are matters for the circuit courts.

Standard of Review

A party subject to a Decision and Order of a Hearing Officer of the STC may file an application requesting the case be reviewed by the STC.  Section 138.432[2].  The STC may then summarily allow or deny the request.  Section 138.432.  The STC may affirm, modify, reverse, set aside, deny, or remand to the Hearing Officer the Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer on the basis of the evidence previously submitted or based on additional evidence taken before the STC.  Section 138.432.    

Commission’s Ruling

          For the reasons that follow, the Commission finds Complainant’s arguments to be unpersuasive.  The Commission, having thoroughly reviewed the whole record and having considered the Hearing Officer’s Decision, the Application for Review of Complainant, and the Response of Respondent, affirms the Hearing Officer’s decision.

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the BOE.  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).  This presumption is a rebuttable rather than a conclusive presumption.  The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the BOE’s valuation is erroneous and what fair market value should have been placed on the property.  Id.

The taxpayer in a STC appeal bears the burden of proof. The taxpayer is the moving party seeking affirmative relief.  Therefore, Complainant bears the burden of proving by substantial and persuasive evidence the vital elements of the case, i.e., the assessment was “unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary, or capricious.” 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. W.D. 1991).  Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).  Persuasive evidence is evidence that has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact.  Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702.  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).

The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule, or method in determining true value in money and 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 Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968).

To obtain a reduction in the assessment of real property based upon discrimination, the complaining taxpayer must (1) prove the true value in money of the subject property as  of the taxing date; and (2) show an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessor, which resulted in an assessment at a greater percentage of value than other property within the same class and the same taxing district, or, in the absence of such an intentional plan, show that the level of assessment is “so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment.” Zimmerman v. Mid–America Financial Corp., 481 S.W.3d 564, 571 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015), quoting Savage v. State Tax Comm’n of Missouri, 722 S.W.2d  72, 78 (Mo. banc 1986). Evidence of value and assessments of a few properties does not prove discrimination. Substantial evidence must show that all other property in the same class, generally, is actually undervalued. State ex rel. Plantz v. State Tax Commission, 384  S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo. 1964).  Missouri courts have consistently held that (1) a taxpayer alleging discrimination must show the true value  in money of his property as a necessary part of his discrimination claim; and (2) the proper  method of determining discrimination is to compare the actual level of assessment of the subject property as determined by the assessor to the common level of assessment for the subject property’s subclass. Mid-America Financial Corp., 481 S.W.3d at 574, citing Savage, 722 S.W.2d at 72.

The taxpayer in a STC appeal bears the burden of proof. The taxpayer is the moving party seeking affirmative relief.  Therefore, in this appeal, Complainant had the burden of proving her claim of discrimination in assessment.  However, the record reveals that no evidence of discrimination in assessment was presented.  Notably, Complainant agreed with the BOE’s valuation of the subject property, which reduced Respondent’s initial valuation.  Complainant presented no evidence of additional properties for comparison with the subject property in order to establish a plan of discrimination by Greene County. No evidence was presented to establish that a statistically-significant number of other residential properties within Greene County are being assessed at a lower ratio of market value than the subject property. Complainant presented no evidence of properties that sold for prices in excess of their appraised value and even testified  the subject property most likely was assessed higher than before due to its improvements.  Furthermore, as noted in Respondent’s Response, any claims related to a boundary dispute between Complainant and a neighbor, including claims that discrimination occurred in the context of the boundary dispute, are outside the STC’s authority to resolve.  There was no evidence establishing that a boundary dispute was related to Respondent’s assessment of the subject property.

ORDER

          The Decision of the Hearing Officer is AFFIRMED.  Segments of the Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, may have been incorporated by reference, as if set out in full, in this final decision of the Commission.

Judicial review of this Order may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.432 and 536.100 to 536.140 RSMo within 30 days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service for this Order.

If judicial review of this decision is made, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the courts unless disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031.8 RSMo.

If no judicial review is made within 30 days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of Greene 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.

SO ORDERED April 22, 2022.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

Gary Romine, Chairman

 

Victor Callahan, Commissioner

 

Will Kraus, Commissioner

 

Certificate of Service

 I certify that copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid on April 22, 2022 to: Complainant(s) and/or Counsel for Complainant(s), the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.

 

Elaina Mejia

Legal Coordinator

 

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

LINDA MACKE, )

)

)

)

)

Appeal No. 21-33000

Parcel/locator No(s): 1216302008

Complainant(s), )
)
v. )
)
BRENT JOHNSON, ASSESSOR,

GREENE, COUNTY, MISSOURI,

)

)

Respondent. )

DECISION AND ORDER

Linda Macke (Complainant) appeals the Greene County Board of Equalization’s (BOE) decision finding the true value in money (TVM) of the subject property on January 1, 2021, was $120,900. Complainant claimed the property is subject to discrimination. Complainant did not produce substantial and persuasive evidence establishing discrimination. The BOE’s decision is affirmed.1

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.

Complainant appeared pro se. Respondent was represented by counsel Aaron Klusmeyer. The evidentiary hearing was conducted in person on December 21, 2021, in Room 309 of the Greene County Courthouse, Springfield, Missouri.2

FINDINGS OF FACT

  1. Subject Property. The subject property is located at 854 N. Burton Ave, in Springfield, The parcel/locator number is 1216302008.

The subject property consists of a .5357 acre lot and a residential single family home. The home has a two car garage and a fenced in backyard. Complainant purchased the subject property approximately 15 to 20 years ago.

  1. Respondent and BOE. Respondent classified the subject property as residential and determined the TVM on January 1, 2021, was $133,800. The BOE classified the subject property as residential and independently determined the TVM on January 1, 2021, was $120,900.
  2. Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant testified the TVM of the subject property on January 1, 2021, was $120,900. Complainant testified that the Greene County Assessor’s office valued her property higher than other residences in her neighborhood, but that may be because her home had many improvements in the past few years, including a new dining room and living room. Complainant testified that a fence was placed over the property line by her neighbors.

2 Lorella Crews and Lauren Havard, Interpreters, were present and provided interpretation service for the evidentiary hearing.

  1. Respondent’s Evidence. On October 28, 2021, Respondent submitted a Motion to Dismiss. Respondent submitted no additional evidence.
  2. Value. The TVM of the subject property on January 1, 2021, was $120,900.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 1.   Assessment and Valuation

 Pursuant to Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945 real property and tangible personal property is assessed at its value or such percentage of its value as may be fixed by law for each class and for each subclass. Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945. 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).

In order to obtain a reduction in assessed value based upon discrimination, the Complainants must (1) prove the true value in money of their property on January 1, 2021; and (2) show an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessing officials resulting in an assessment of that property at a greater percentage of value than other property, generally, within the same class within the same taxing jurisdiction. Koplar v. State Tax Commission, 321 S.W.2d 686, 690, 695 (Mo. 1959). Evidence of value and assessments of a few properties does not prove discrimination. Substantial evidence must show that all other property in the same class, generally, is actually undervalued. State ex rel. Plantz v. State Tax Commission, 384 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo. 1964). The difference in the assessment ratio of the subject property and the average assessment ratio in the subject county must be shown to be grossly excessive. Savage v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 722 S.W.2d 72, 79 (Mo. banc 1986). No other methodology is sufficient to establish discrimination. Cupples-Hesse, supra.

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. For this reason, the comparable sales approach is typically used to value residential property. “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. The Hearing Officer’s decision regarding the assessment or valuation of the property may be based solely upon his inquiry and any evidence presented by the parties, or based solely upon evidence presented by the parties. Id.

3.   Complainant’s Burden of Proof

 The BOE’s valuation is presumptively correct. Rinehart v. Laclede Gas Co., 607 S.W.3d 220, 227 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020). To prove overvaluation, a taxpayer must rebut the BOE’s presumptively correct valuation and prove the “value that should have been placed on the property.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 346. The taxpayer’s evidence must be both “substantial and persuasive.” 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

  1. 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”). A taxpayer does not meet his burden if evidence on any essential element of his case leaves the STC “in the nebulous twilight of speculation, conjecture and surmise.” See, Rossman v. G.G.C. Corp. of Missouri, 596 S.W.2d 469, 471 (Mo. App. 1980).

To obtain a reduction in the assessment of real property based upon discrimination, the complaining taxpayer must (1) prove the true value in money of the subject property as of the taxing date; and (2) show an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessor, which resulted in an assessment at a greater percentage of value than other property within the same class and the same taxing district, or, in the absence of such an intentional plan, show that the level of assessment is “so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment.” Zimmerman v. Mid–America Financial Corp., 481 S.W.3d 564, 571 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015), quoting Savage v. State Tax Comm’n of Missouri, 722 S.W.2d 72, 78 (Mo. banc 1986). Evidence of value and assessments of a few properties does not prove discrimination. Substantial evidence must show that all other property in the same class, generally, is actually undervalued. State ex rel. Plantz v. State Tax Commission, 384 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo. 1964).

4.     Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss is denied.

The STC has statutory authority to hear the appeal based on the timely filing of a Complaint for Review by the Complainant. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss argues that based on the subject of the Complainant’s argument, the STC is without subject matter jurisdiction. This argument is without merit as the statute provides “every owner of real assessment to such property.” Section 138.430.1. Therefore, the authority of the STC over the appeal is based on the timely filed Complaint for Review of the BOE’s decision on the 2021 valuation of the subject property. The merits of Complainant’s discrimination claim is an issue for the trier of fact and should be determined after the full evidentiary hearing. Any and all evidence presented regarding the Complainant’s property line dispute will not be considered in this forum because the STC is not authorized to resolve property line disputes, which are a matter for the circuit courts. Therefore, the Motion to Dismiss is denied.

5.   Complainant Did Not Prove Discrimination.

Complainant did not prove discrimination for the subject property. Missouri courts have consistently held that (1) a taxpayer alleging discrimination must show the true value in money of his property as a necessary part of his discrimination claim; and (2) the proper method of determining discrimination is to compare the actual level of assessment of the subject property as determined by the assessor to the common level of assessment for the subject property’s subclass. Mid-America Financial Corp., 481 S.W.3d at 574, citing Savage, 722 S.W.2d at 72.

Regarding the first point, Complainant did not establish any TVM independent of the BOE’s valuation. Complainant testified that she was in agreement with the BOE’s valuation of $120,900. The BOE’s decision had reduced the 2021 value set by the Respondent from $133,800 to $120,900. Complainant did not present any appraisal or comparable sales evidence establishing the TVM was lower than $120,900. Therefore, Complainant failed to present evidence of a lower TVM, which does not prove the first point of a necessary discrimination claim since she was in agreement with the TVM established by the BOE.

Regarding the second point, Complainant presented no evidence of additional properties for comparison with the subject property in order to establish a plan of discrimination by Greene County. There was no evidence presented that a statistically significant number of other residential properties within Greene County are being assessed at a lower ratio of market value than the subject property. Complainant presented no evidence of properties which sold for prices in excess of their appraised value and testified that the subject property most likely appraised higher due to its improvements, but presented no appraisal or comparable sales in support of her testimony. Because the Complainant failed to establish the market value of the subject property and failed to establish that it is being assessed at a higher percentage of market value than a statistically significant number of other properties in Greene County, the claim of discrimination fails.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The BOE decision is affirmed. The TVM of the subject property as of January 1, 2021, was $120,900, with an assessed value of $22,980.

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 Greene 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 January, 14, 2022.

 

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

Erica M. Gage

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 January 14, 2022, 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] 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.

[2] All statutory citations are to RSMo. 2000, as amended, unless indicated otherwise.