Mark & Frances Saber v. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor St. Louis County

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

MARK & FRANCES SABER,	)
	)
Complainants,	)
	)
v.	)	Appeal No. 17-10463
	) )	Parcel/Locator No. 21S540451
JAKE ZIMMERMAN,  ASSESSOR,	)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,	) )
Respondent.	)

 

ORDER

AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION

UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

HOLDING

On May 25, 2018, Chief Counsel Maureen Monaghan (Hearing Officer) entered her Decision and Order (Decision) affirming the decision of the Board of Equalization of St. Louis County (BOE).  Mark and Frances Saber (Complainants) subsequently filed their Application for Review of Hearing Officer’s Decision and Order.  Jake Zimmerman, Assessor of St. Louis County (Respondent), thereafter filed an Opposition to Complainant’s Application for Review.

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

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            The subject property is identified by parcel/locator number 21S540541.  It is further identified as 15230 Lochcrest Court, Chesterfield, St. Louis County, Missouri.  The subject property consists of a 31,935 square foot lot improved with a ranch style home of 2,474 square feet.  The lot has a sewer easement in back. The home was built in 1974.  It has four bedrooms, 2 full baths and one-half bath.

Respondent initially valued the subject property at $324,400, as residential, as of January 1, 2017.  The BOE valued the subject property at $312,900, as residential, as of January 1, 2017, thereby lowering Respondent’s valuation. The issue of overvaluation was presented at an evidentiary hearing on May 10, 2018, at the St. Louis County Government Building, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri.

Exhibits

Complainants offered the following exhibits.

Exhibit	Description
A	Plat map of subject lot highlighting easement
B	St. Louis County webpage on assessments of subject property
C	St. Louis County webpage on assessments of parcel 23S220619
D	St. Louis County webpage on assessments of parcel 20S220628
E	St. Louis County webpage on assessments of parcel 20S210232
F	Calculation of land value
G	Plat map of parcels

 

 

Complainants’ exhibits were received into the record.

Complainants offered the exhibits to support their opinion of value of $273,218 Complainants contend that a sewer easement had a negative impact on the value of the subject property.  Complainant Mark Saber (Complainant) testified that the sewer line and easement prevents Complainants from installing a swimming pool or other structure.

Complainants’ opinion of value was determined using the BOE’s valuation of the improvements ($189,100) and Complainant’s calculation of the valuation of the lot.  Complainant calculated what he deemed to be the usable square footage of the lot and multiplied it by an average per square foot price for land in the area as determined by Respondent.  Complainants’ lot is 31,935 square feet.  Complainant calculated that 8,156 square feet in the back of the lot is unbuildable due to the easement.  Complainant believed another 2,362 square feet total on the sides is unbuildable due to the easement.  Complainant’s contention at the Evidentiary Hearing was that only 21,417 of his lot might be available for improvements.

Complainant reviewed the Respondent’s appraised values of land for three properties neighboring the subject.  Respondent’s mass appraisal system values the land separately from the improvements.  Complainant calculated an average square foot price for land and multiplied the average square foot price by the square footage, which Complainant deemed usable and added it to the improvement value of their home as calculated by the Respondent.  The resulting opinion of value was $273,218.

Respondent advocated affirming the BOE’s TVM of $312,900.  Respondent offered the testimony of Sharon Kuelker (Appraiser) and her appraisal report.  Appraiser opined the value of the property as of January 1, 2018 at $360,000.  The comparable properties utilized were within one-half mile of the subject and the improvements within 227 square feet of the subject’s square footage.  Appraiser utilized lots of approximately 21,000 square feet so that she would not have to make adjustments for the easement on Complainant’s lot.  Appraiser made other appropriate market based adjustments.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Complainant’s Points on Review

            Complainants assert that they “understand [the Hearing Officer’s Decision] that we did not present our case persuasively to support our point.” Complainants state that they could not rebut the appraisal report presented by Respondent at the Evidentiary Hearing and advocate that the STC consider their new calculations of a higher amount of lot square footage available for improvements.

STC’s Ruling

For the reasons that follow, the STC does not find Complainants’ arguments to be persuasive.  The STC, having thoroughly reviewed the whole record and having considered the Hearing Officer’s Decision, the Application for Review of Complainant and Respondent’s response opposing the Application for Review affirms the Hearing Officer’s decision.

Standard of Review

A party subject to a Decision and Order of a Hearing Officer with the State Tax Commission (STC) may file an application requesting the case be reviewed by the STC.  Section 138.432 RSMo Cum. Supp. 2015.  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.

Presumption In Appeal

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).   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 Board’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the property. Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).

Complainant’s Burden of Proof

The taxpayer in a Commission appeal still bears the burden of proof.  The taxpayer is the moving party seeking affirmative relief.   Therefore, the Complainant bears the burden of proving the vital elements of the case, i.e., the assessment was “unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary or capricious.”  See, Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Daly v. P. D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); Reeves v. Snider, 115 S.W.3d 375 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003); Industrial Development Authority of Kansas City v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 804 S.W.2d 387, 392 (Mo. App. 1991).  Such must be proved by substantial and persuasive evidence.  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).

Weight to be Given Evidence

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).

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 deemed necessary when viewed in connection with all other circumstances.  Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991).  The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, is not bound by the opinions of experts but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony or accept it in part or reject it in part.  Exchange Bank of Missouri v. Gerlt, 367 S.W.3d 132, 135-36 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012).

Owner’s Opinion of Value

The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.   Rigali v. Kensington Place Homeowners’ Ass’n, 103 S.W.3d 839, 846 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Boten v. Brecklein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 95 (Sup. 1970).   The owner’s opinion is without probative value; however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation.  Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, (Mo. App. E.D., March 25, 2008); Carmel Energy, Inc. v. Fritter, 827 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992); State, ex rel. Missouri Hwy & Transp. Com’n v. Pracht, 801 S.W.2d 90, 94 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990); Shelby County R-4 School District v. Hermann, 392 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Sup. 1965).

“Where the basis for a test as to the reliability of the testimony is not supported by a statement of facts on which it is based, or the basis of fact does not appear to be sufficient, the testimony should be rejected.”  Carmel Energy at 783.  A taxpayer does not meet his burden if evidence on any essential element of his case leaves the Commission “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).

Respondent’s Burden of Proof

Respondent, when advocating a value different from that determined by the original valuation or a valuation made by the BOE, must meet the same burden of proof to present substantial and persuasive evidence of the value advocated as required of the Complainant under the principles established by case law.  Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895; Cupples-Hesse, 329 S.W.2d at 702; Brooks, 527 S.W.2d at 53.

In this case, Respondent did not advocate a value different from his initial valuation or the valuation made by the BOE.  Respondent argued that the BOE’s determination of value of $312,900 was correct and should be affirmed, supported by an appraisal report opining a TVM of $360,000 ($47,100 higher than the BOE).  This constitutes substantial and persuasive evidence supporting the BOE’s valuation.

Discussion

Complainants’ evidence at the evidentiary hearing was neither substantial nor persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE.  Substantial evidence is that which is relevant, adequate, and reasonably supports a conclusion.  Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702.  Persuasive evidence is that which causes the trier of fact to believe, more likely than not, the conclusion advocated is the correct conclusion.  Id.  Complainants did not present any evidence utilizing one or more of three generally accepted approaches to valuing real property for ad valorem tax purposes.  Complainants’ valuation utilized a linear mathematical calculation per square foot of land, which Complainants did not show is market based.  Further, Complainant’s methodology fails to consider the market reaction to the easement or any market sales of similar properties.  The same is true regarding Complainants’ newly proffered calculations.

Alternatively, Respondent’s opinion of value was developed using a recognized approach to value.  Respondent’s appraiser selected comparables with lot sizes per square foot of 20,517, 19,515, and 21,606 and compared them to the subject with a lot size of 31,935 square feet of which Complainants stated only 21,417 square feet was available for improvements.  Respondent’s appraiser made $0 adjustments for the differences in land square footage to account for the easement on the subject property.  Respondent’s appraiser opined a TVM of $360,000 ($47,100 higher than the BOE).  Respondent’s appraiser opinion of TVM is substantial and persuasive and supports the BOE’s determination of TVM.

Summary & Conclusion

The Hearing Officer found that the Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the BOE presumption.  STC finds that a reasonable mind could have conscientiously reached the same result as the Hearing Officer based on a review of the entire record.  Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888 (Mo. 1978); Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Holt v. Clarke, 965 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998); Smith v. Morton, 890 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995); Phelps v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 598 S.W.2d 163 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980).

ORDER

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

Segments of the Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, have been incorporated without reference, as if set out in full, in this final decision of the STC.

Judicial review of this Order may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.432 and 536.100 to 536.140, RSMo within thirty 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 thirty days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of St. Louis 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 August 7, 2018.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

 

Victor Callahan, Commissioner

 

Will Kraus, Commissioner

 

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 7th day of August, 2018, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator

 

 

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

MARK & FRANCES SABER,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)	Appeal No. 17-10463
	) )	Parcel/Locator No. 21S540451
JAKE ZIMMERMAN,  ASSESSOR,	)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, Respondent	) )

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

The decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization (BOE) is AFFIRMED.  Complainants Mark and Frances Saber (Complainants) did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE.

Complainants appeared pro se.

Respondent Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, (Respondent) appeared by counsel Steve Robson.

Case heard and decided by Chief Counsel Maureen Monaghan (Hearing Officer).

ISSUE

Complainants appealed on the ground of overvaluation.  Respondent initially set the true value in money (TVM) of the subject property at $324,400, as residential property, as of January 1, 2017.  The BOE valued the subject property at $312,900. The State Tax Commission (STC) takes this appeal to determine the TVM for the subject property as of January 1, 2017.

The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.  Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission.
2. Evidentiary Hearing. The issue of overvaluation was presented at an evidentiary hearing on May 10, 2018, at the St. Louis County Government Building, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri.
3. Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by parcel/locator number 21S540541.  It is further identified as 15230 Lochcrest Court, Chesterfield, St. Louis County, Missouri.  (Complaint; Exhibit 1)
4. Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of a 31,935 square foot lot improved with a ranch style home of 2,474 square feet.  The lot has a sewer easement in back. The home was built in 1974.  It has four bedrooms, 2 full baths and one-half bath.
5. Assessment. Respondent set a TVM for the subject property of $324,400, residential, as of January 1, 2017.
6. Board of Equalization. The BOE set a TVM of the subject property at $312,900 ($123,800 land value and $189,100 improvement value), residential, as of January 1, 2017.
7. Complainants’ Evidence. Complainant Mark Saber (Complainant) opined that the TVM of the subject property was $273,218 as of January 1, 2017.  Complainant submitted the following exhibits:

Exhibit	Description
A	Plat map of subject lot highlighting easement
B	St. Louis County webpage on assessments of subject property
C	St. Louis County webpage on assessments of parcel 23S220619
D	St. Louis County webpage on assessments of parcel 20S220628
E	St. Louis County webpage on assessments of parcel 20S210232
F	Calculation of land value
G	Plat map of parcels

 

Complainant contends that a sewer easement had a negative impact on the value of the subject property.  Complainant testified that the sewer line and easement prevents Complainants from installing a swimming pool or other structure.

Complainant’s opinion of value was determined using the BOE’s valuation of the improvements ($189,100) and his calculation of the valuation of the lot.  Complainant calculated what he deemed to be the usable square footage of the lot and multiplied it by an average per square foot price for land in the area as determined by Respondent.  Complainants’ lot is 31,935 square feet.  Complainant calculated that 8,156 square feet in the back of the lot is unbuildable due to the easement.  Complainant believes another 2,362 square feet on the sides is unbuildable due to the easement.  Complainant’s contention is that only 21,417 of his lot may be available for improvements.

Complainant reviewed the Respondent’s appraised values of land for three properties neighboring the subject.  Respondent’s mass appraisal system values the land separately from the improvements.  Complainant calculated an average square foot price for land of $3.96.  Complainant multiplied the average square foot price by 21,417 (the square footage Complainant deemed usable) and added it to the improvement value of their home as calculated by the Respondent.  The resulting opinion of value was $273,218.

8. Respondent’s Evidence.  Respondent advocated affirming the BOE’s determination of TVM, $312,900.  To support his opinion of value, Respondent offered the testimony of Sharon Kuelker (Appraiser) and her appraisal report (Exhibit 1).  Appraiser opined the value of the property as of January 1, 2018 at $360,000.  Appraiser developed the sales comparison approach to value.  Appraiser utilized sales of three comparable properties that sold between October 2016 and June 2017.  The comparable properties sold for $337,000 to $387,000.

The properties were within one-half mile of the subject and the comparable homes were within 227 square feet of the subject’s square footage.  All of the homes were constructed in the early to mid-1970s.  Appraiser looked for properties with lots of approximately 21,000 square feet so that she would not have to make adjustments for the easement on Complainant’s lot.  Appraiser made adjustments for differences between the subject and the comparables, including condition.

After the appraiser made adjustments for differences including condition and financing terms, Appraiser’s opinion of value was $360,000.

9. Presumption of Correct Assessment Not Rebutted – True Value in Money Not Established. Complainant did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE and to establish the TVM of the subject property to be $273,218, as of January 1, 2017.  However, even though not required to present any evidence, Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence supporting the assessment made by the BOE of $312,900, as of January 1, 2017.

 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

Jurisdiction

The STC has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious, including the application of any abatement.  The Hearing Officer shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination of the BOE, and correcting any assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary, or capricious.  Article X, Section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo. 

Basis of Assessment

The Constitution mandates that real property and tangible personal property be assessed at its value or such percentage of its value as may be fixed by law for each class and for each subclass.  Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945.  The constitutional mandate is to find the true value in money for the property under appeal.  By statute, real property and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money:  residential property at 19%; commercial property at 32%; and agricultural property at 12%.  Section 137.115.5 RSMo (2000) as amended.

Investigation by Hearing Officer

In order to investigate appeals filed with the STC, 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 RSMo (2000) as amended.  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.

During the Evidentiary Hearing, the Hearing Officer inquired of Complainants and Appraiser.

Board Presumption and Computer-Assisted Presumption

            There exists a presumption of correct assessment by the BOE – the BOE presumption.  The BOE presumption requires the taxpayer to substantial and persuasive present evidence to rebut it.  If Respondent is seeking to prove a value different than that set by the BOE, then Respondent is required to rebut the BOE presumption.  The BOE’s valuation is assumed to be an independent valuation.

Complainant’s Burden of Proof

To obtain a reduction in assessed valuation based upon an alleged overvaluation, the Complainant must prove the true value in money of the subject property on the subject tax day.  Hermel, Inc., v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, 897 (Mo. banc 1978).  True value in money is defined as the price that the subject property would bring when offered for sale by one willing but not obligated to sell it and bought by one willing or desirous to purchase but not compelled to do so.  Rinehart v. Bateman, 363 S.W.3d 357, 365 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012); Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008); Greene County v. Hermel, Inc., 511 S.W.2d 762, 771 (Mo. 1974).  True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not in terms of value in use.  Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973).  In sum, true value in money is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.  Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897.

“’True value’ is never an absolute figure, but is merely an estimate of the fair market value on the valuation date.”  Drury Chesterfield, Inc., v. Muehlheausler, 347 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011), citing St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n of Mo., 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993).  “Fair market value typically is defined as the price which the property would bring when offered for sale by a willing seller who is not obligated to sell, and purchased by a willing buyer who is not compelled to buy.”  Drury Chesterfield, Inc., 347 S.W.3d at 112 (quotation omitted).

A presumption exists that the assessed value fixed by the BOE is correct.  Rinehart, 363 S.W.3d at 367; Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348; Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895.  “Substantial and persuasive controverting evidence is required to rebut the presumption, with the burden of proof resting on the taxpayer.” Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348.  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). See also, Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Daly v. P. D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); Reeves v. Snider, 115 S.W.3d 375 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003).

There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. The taxpayer in a STC appeal still bears the burden of proof.  The taxpayer is the moving party seeking affirmative relief.   Therefore, the Complainant bears the burden of proving the vital elements of the case, i.e., the assessment was “unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary or capricious.”  Westwood Partnership, 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).

Generally, a property owner, while not an expert, is competent to testify to the reasonable market value of his own land.  Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348-49; Carmel Energy, Inc. v. Fritter, 827 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992).  “However, when an owner’s opinion is based on improper elements or foundation, his opinion loses its probative value.”  Carmel Energy, Inc., 827 S.W.2d at 783.  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. E.D. 1980).

Respondent’s Burden of Proof

Respondent, when advocating a value different from that determined by the original valuation or a valuation made by the BOE, must meet the same burden of proof to present substantial and persuasive evidence of the value advocated as required of the Complainant under the principles established by case law.  Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895; Cupples-Hesse, 329 S.W.2d at 702; Brooks, 527 S.W.2d at 53.

In this case, Respondent did not advocate a value different from his initial valuation or the valuation made by the BOE.  Respondent argued that the BOE’s determination of value was correct and should be affirmed.  Even though not required, Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence supporting the BOE’s valuation.

Weight to be Given Evidence

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).

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 deemed necessary when viewed in connection with all other circumstances.  Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991).  The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, is not bound by the opinions of experts but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony or accept it in part or reject it in part.  Exchange Bank of Missouri v. Gerlt, 367 S.W.3d 132, 135-36 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012).

Methods of Valuation

Proper methods of valuation and assessment of property are delegated to the Commission.  It is within the purview of the Hearing Officer to determine the method of valuation to be adopted in a given case.   See, Nance v. STC, 18 S.W.3d 611, 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897; Xerox Corp. v. STC, 529 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1975).  Missouri courts have approved the comparable sales or market approach, the cost approach, and the income approach as recognized methods of arriving at fair market value.   St. Joe Minerals Corp. v. STC, 854 S.W.2d 526, 529 (App. E.D. 1993); Aspenhof Corp. v. STC, 789 S.W.2d 867, 869 (App. E.D. 1990); Quincy Soybean Company, Inc., v. Lowe, 773 S.W.2d 503, 504 (App. E.D. 1989), citing Del-Mar Redevelopment Corp v. Associated Garages, Inc., 726 S.W.2d 866, 869 (App. E.D. 1987); and State ex rel. State Highway Comm’n v. Southern Dev. Co., 509 S.W.2d 18, 27 (Mo. 1974).

“For purposes of levying property taxes, the value of real property is typically determined using one or more of three generally accepted approaches.”  Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341, 346 (Mo. banc 2005), citing St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977).  “Each valuation approach is applied with reference to a specific use of the property—its highest and best use.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 346-47, citing Aspenhof  Corp., 789 S.W.2d at 869.  “The method used depends on several variables inherent in the highest and best use of the property in question.”  Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 347.

“Each method uses its own unique factors to calculate the property’s true value in money.”  Id.  “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 348.  “Comparable sales consist of evidence of sales reasonably related in time and distance and involve land comparable in character.”  Id. (quotation omitted).  “This approach is most appropriate when there is an active market for the type of property at issue such that sufficient data [is] available to make a comparative analysis.”  Id.

Implicit in this definition are the consummation of a sale as of a specific date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:

1. Buyer and seller are typically motivated.

 

2. Both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interests.

 

3. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.

 

4. Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.

 

5. Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.

 

6. The price represents a normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special financing amounts and/or terms, services, fees, costs, or credits incurred in  the transaction.

 

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.

Discussion

            In this case, Complainant’s evidence was neither substantial nor persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE.    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.

Complainants did not present any evidence utilizing one or more of three generally accepted approaches to valuing real property for ad valorem tax purposes.  Complainant’s valuation was not based upon land sales or sales of comparable properties.  Complainant’s methodology fails to consider the market reaction to the easement or any market sales of similar properties.  Whereas, Respondent’s opinion of value was developed using a recognized approach to value.  Respondent took into consideration the market reaction to a lot size of approximately 20,000 square feet.  Respondent’s opinion of value supports the BOE’s determination of value.

ORDER

The TVM for the subject property as determined by the BOE is AFFIRMED.  The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2017 is set at $59,450 residential ($312,900 TVM).

Application for Review

A party may file with the STC an application for review of this decision within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service for this Decision.  The application shall contain specific facts or law as grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.  Said application must be in writing addressed to the State Tax Commission of Missouri, P.O. Box 146, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146, and a copy of said application must be sent to each person at the address listed below in the certificate of service.

            Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the application for review is based will result in summary denial. Section 138.432, RSMo

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 139.031.8, RSMo.

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 May 25, 2018.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Maureen Monaghan

Chief Counsel

 

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 25th day of May, 2018, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.

 

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator