Mark Purk v. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County

December 3rd, 2021


Complainant, ) Appeal No.    19-11664
) Parcel No. 25J321532
v. )
Respondent. )



            Mark Purk (Complainant) appeals the St. Louis County Board of Equalization’s (BOE) decision finding the true value in money (TVM) of the subject property on January 1, 2019, was $110,000, with an assessed value of $20,900.   Complainant claims the property is overvalued and proposes a value of $80,000 to $90,000.[1] Complainant did not produce substantial and persuasive evidence establishing overvaluation.  The BOE’s decision is affirmed.[2]

The evidentiary hearing was conducted on April 21, 2021, via WebEx. Complainant appeared pro se.   Respondent was represented by counsel Steven Robson.


  1. Subject Property. The subject property is located at 9023 Kathleen in St. Louis, Missouri. The parcel/locator number is 25J321532.

The subject property consists of a 5,079 square foot lot and a 1,260 square foot single family home that has two bedrooms and one full bath. (Ex. 1 at 2.) The subject property was used as a rental. (Tr. 2:03-45.)

  1. Respondent and BOE. Respondent classified the subject property as residential and determined the TVM on January 1, 2019, was $132,300. The BOE classified the subject property as residential and independently determined the TVM on January 1, 2019, was $110,000.
  2. Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant asserts the TVM of the subject property on January 1, 2019, was $80,000 to $90,000. Complainant testified in support of his opinion of value and submitted the following exhibits:
Exhibit Description Ruling
A Two photographs with notes indicating “old wood windows” and “broken front porch steps.” Admitted
B Two photographs with notes indicating “old garage door” and “garage window.” Admitted
C Two photographs with note indicating “pink carpet throughout house.” Admitted
D Two photographs with notes indicating “broken main plumbing stack” and “water from broke main stack.” Admitted
E Two photographs with note indicating “attic insulation gone.” Admitted
F Two photographs with notes indicating “30+ year old furnace” and “old metal kitchen cabinets.” Admitted
G Allied Heating and A.C., LLC July 31, 2019, estimate to install furnace and air conditioner for $5,800. Admitted
H July 21, 2019, estimate to install roof for $5,414 for 3 tab shingle and $5,777 for architectural shingle. Admitted
I Carpet for Less estimate to install carpet for $5,976. Admitted
J estimate to install kitchen cabinets and countertops for $15,404 to $19,412. Admitted
K The Home Depot special order quote to replace windows for $7,598.71. Admitted

Respondent objected on the basis of hearsay to Exhibits G through K, which were admitted subject to the objection to be given the weight deemed appropriate.  Exhibits A through F were received into evidence.

  1. Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Barry A. Hough, an appraisal supervisor with Respondent and a Missouri state certified real estate appraiser, and submitted Exhibit 1, Mr. Hough’s April 14, 2021, Restricted Use Residential Appraisal Report for the subject property indicating a $135,000 opinion of value as of January 1, 2019, and Exhibit 2, the October 4, 2019, BOE Findings and Notice of Decision. In Exhibit 1, Mr. Hough utilized the sales comparison approach to estimate the market value of the subject property from recent sales of four comparable properties and adjusted for differences. Complainant did not object, and Exhibit 1 was received into evidence along with Mr. Hough’s verbal additions and corrections. Exhibit 2 was also received into evidence.
  2. Value. The TVM of the subject property on January 1, 2019, was $110,000, with an assessed value of $20,900.


  1. Assessment and Valuation. Residential real property is assessed at 19% of its TVM as of January 1 of each odd-numbered year.  Section 137.115.5(1)(a).  “True value in money is the fair market value of the property on the valuation date, and is a function of its highest and best use, which is the use of the property which will produce the greatest return in the reasonably near future.”  Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Mo. Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341, 346 (Mo. banc 2005) (internal quotation omitted).  The fair market value is “the price which the property would bring from a willing buyer when offered for sale by a willing seller.”  Mo. Baptist Children’s Home v. State Tax Comm’n, 867 S.W.2d 510, 512 (Mo. banc 1993).   Determining the TVM is a factual issue for the STC.  Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008). The “proper methods of valuation and assessment of property are delegated to the Commission.”  Savage v. State Tax Comm’n, 722 S.W.2d 72, 75 (Mo. banc 1986).

            “For purposes of levying property taxes, the value of real property is typically determined using one or more of three generally accepted approaches.”  Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 346.  The three generally accepted approaches are the cost approach, the income approach, and the comparable sales approach.  Id. at 346-48; see also St. Louis Cty. v. Sec. Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977).  The comparable sales approach “is most appropriate when there is an active market for the type of property at issue such that sufficient data are available to make a comparative analysis.”  Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 348.  “The comparable sales approach uses prices paid for similar properties in arms-length transactions and adjusts those prices to account for differences between the properties.”  Id. at 347-48 (internal quotation omitted).  “Comparable sales consist of evidence of sales reasonably related in time and distance and involve land comparable in character.”  Id. at 348.

  1. 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.
  2. Complainant’s Burden of Proof. The taxpayer bears the burden of proof and must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was overvalued or misclassified. Westwood P’ship v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152, 161 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). The BOE’s valuation is presumptively correct.  Tibbs v. Poplar Bluff Assocs. I, L.P., 599 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Mo. App. S.D. 2020).  The “taxpayer may rebut this presumption by presenting substantial and persuasive evidence that the valuation is erroneous” and must prove “the value that should have been placed on the property.”  Id.  “Substantial evidence is that evidence which, if true, has probative force upon the issues, and from which the trier of fact can reasonably decide the case on the fact issues.”  Savage, 722 S.W.2d at 77 (internal quotation omitted).  Evidence is persuasive when it has “sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact.”  Daly v. P.D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645, 651 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002); see also White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298, 305 (Mo. banc 2010) (noting the burden of persuasion is the “party’s duty to convince the fact-finder to view the facts in a way that favors that party”).        
  3. Complainant Did Not Prove Overvaluation. Complainant did not produce substantial and persuasive evidence establishing that the BOE’s valuation was erroneous and that his opinion of value, $80,000 to $90,000, was the TVM of the subject property as of January 1, 2019. Exhibits A through K show condition issues with the subject property and repair estimates. However, these exhibits do not directly address the TVM of the subject property as of January 1, 2019, and Complainant did not offer a generally accepted approach to value real property in support of his opinion of value.

Respondent, although not required to, presented persuasive evidence in support of the BOE’s valuation.  Mr. Hough testified that he researched comparable sales, found four comparable sales in the immediate area, made adjustments to the comparable properties, and reached a $135,000 opinion of value, which supports the $110,000 BOE value. Additionally, the subject property sold for $130,000 in September of 2020, (Ex. 1 at 2), which also supports the BOE value.


The BOE decision is affirmed.  The TVM of the subject property as of January 1, 2019, was $110,000, with an assessed value of $20,900.[3]

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  A copy of the application must be sent to each person listed below in the certificate of service.

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

Disputed Taxes

            The Collector of St. Louis  County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall continue to hold the disputed taxes pending the possible filing of an application for review, unless said taxes have been disbursed pursuant to a court order under the provisions of section 139.031.

SO ORDERED December 3, 2021.


Laura A. Storck-Elam

Senior Hearing Officer

State Tax Commission


Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been electronically mailed and/or sent by U.S. Mail on December 3, 2021, to: Complainant(s) and/or Counsel for Complainant(s), the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.


Elaina Mejia

Legal Coordinator


[1] In the Complaint for Review of Assessment, Complainant’s proposed value is listed as $75,000. During the evidentiary hearing, Complainant testified that he believes the TVM is under $100,000 and in the range of $80,000 to $90,000. (Tr. 3:15-40.)

[2] 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.

[3] 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.