Mark & Saundra Sobelman v. Zimmerman (SLCO)

State Tax Commission of Missouri

MARK & SAUNDRA SOBELMAN,)

)

Complainants,)

)

v.)Appeal Number 09-14447

)

JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR,)

ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

ORDER

MODIFYING HEARING OFFICER DECISION

UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

On April 27, 2011, Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor entered his Decision and Order (Decision) setting aside the assessment by the St. Louis County Board of Equalization, and setting value at $410,140, assessed residential value of $77,900.

Respondent timely filed his Application for Review of the Decision.^[i]Complainants filed their Response.^[ii]Respondent filed his Reply.^[iii]Transcript received by Commission on

August 18, 2011.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Standard Upon Review

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.^[iv]

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.^[v]

The Commission will not lightly interfere with the Hearing Officer’s Decision and substitute its judgment on the credibility of witnesses and weight to be given the evidence for that of the Hearing Officer as the trier of fact.^[vi]

DECISION

Respondent’s Allegations of Hearing Officer Error

Respondent presents the following allegations of error by the Hearing Officer in rendering his Decision.^[vii]

1.The Hearing Officer erred in relying on Complainant’s comparables at 1 Lynnbrook Dr. (sold 5/08 – $410,000) and 45 Lynnbrook Dr. (sold 4/07 – $485,000), since they sold in “as is” condition and the improvements weresubsequently torn down.

2.The Hearing Officer erred in ignoring that the property at 1 Lynnbrook Dr. resold in February 2, 2009, for $425,000.

3.The Hearing Officer erred in allowing the time of sale adjustment made byComplainant’s appraiser to stand.

4.The Hearing Officer erred in not making an adjustment in Complainants’Appraisal for the subject’s lot size after it was corrected.

Based on the forgoing, Respondent prays the Commission reverse and modify the Decision by removing the consideration of the sales at 1 and 45 Lynnbrook from the final conclusion of value.

Complainant’s Response to Allegations of Hearing Officer Error

1.The sales at 1 and 45 Lynnbrook were proper comparables to be used to value the subject.

2.The resale of 1 Lynnbrook was neither a reliable comparable nor an accurate indicator of an applicable time adjustment.

3.The lot size accurately reflected County records and the marketable acreage of the subject lot.

Commission Review

The four allegations of error involve the issues of use of comparable sales at # 1 and # 45 Lynnbrook, resale of #1 Lynnbrook, adjustments for time of sale, and subject lot size adjustment.

# 1 & # 45 Lynnbrook Comparables

Respondent alleges it was error for the Hearing Officer to have placed any reliance on the sale of these two properties because the improvements were torn down after the purchases.It appears the basis for Respondent’s argument on this point is that Complainants’ Appraiser did not place any information in his appraisal relative to the improvements having been torn down after the sales, used pictures of the properties which had been obtained from the Multi-List Service, and made no adjustment for additional costs of actual demolition for the improvements on the two comparables.

It is clear the Hearing Officer was aware that both of these properties had sold as what is generally referred to as a “tear down.”^[viii]Complainants’ Appraiser so testified.^[ix]Accordingly, the failure to include such information in the appraisal report is irrelevant.

The record shows that of the 42 lots in the subject’s immediate subdivision, 31 are original existing homes, eight are newer homes built after the original home was torn down and 3 are vacant lots where the original homes have been torn down.^[x]Therefore, the purchase of the subject as a tear down is a possibility established by the history of the subdivision.Furthermore, the selection of these two properties as comparables by Complainants’ appraiser was based upon his judgment that these two properties were in very much the same condition as the subject and would appeal to the same market as what the comparables did at teardown.The appraiser considered the subject to be part of the average market like the two comparables, as opposed to a good market of updated and rehabbed properties.^[xi]This is supported by the MLS sheets on these two properties.The MLS information on #1 Lynnbrook gives a description which clearly is marketing the property for a sale for occupancy, not marketing it for tear-down.^[xii]As to # 45 Lynnbrook, the MLS data simply supports the conclusion of Complainant’s Appraiser that the property would appeal to both the occupancy and tear down market, since it states “enjoy as is or tear down for your dream home.”^[xiii]The Hearing Officer did not err in giving deference to the appraiser’s judgment on this point.

As to the use of MLS pictures at the time of sale, this provides no basis to find the Hearing Officer erred in giving consideration to these two sales.The photographs are an accurate depiction of the appearance and condition of the properties immediately preceding their sales.The use of those photographs was not misleading.Furthermore, this is in line with the Appraiser’s position that these properties where in similar condition to the subject and therefore, could have sold for occupancy, as opposed to for demolition.

The decision of the Complainants’ appraiser to not add “additional cost of the actual demolition on top of the sale price for these two comparables”^[xiv] does not provide a foundation to establish error on the part of the Hearing Officer in using the sales.Whatever cost there was to demolish the homes on the two properties, does not constitute what a willing buyer paid to a willing seller as the purchase price for the home.Respondent conceded that cost of demolition is not actually part of the purchase price.^[xv]

Hearing Officer did not err in placing reliance on these two comparables in concluding value for the subject.

Resale of #1 Lynnbrook

Respondent’s Application for Review complains that Complainants’ appraiser did not mention or use the sale of #1 Lynnbrook which occurred in February 2009, and it was ignored by the Hearing Officer.Counsel for Respondent simply inquired of Complainant’s appraiser relative to the Property Record Card on this property which showed a February 2009 sale.^[xvi]That testimony fails to establish that the appraiser had any prior knowledge of the 2009 sale.

It was not error for the Hearing Officer to not use the February 2009 sale when neither appraiser had utilized it.It is clear that the Hearing Officer limited his valuation to the specific sales reflected in Complainants’ Comparables 2, 3 and 4 and Respondent’s Comparables, 1, 2, 3 and 4.Since the 2009 sale of this property was not one of those properties, the Hearing Officer properly declined to consider it in his conclusion of value.

Time of Sale Adjustment

Respondent’s argues that Complainants’ appraiser used suspect data, not clearly presented in the report to make his time adjustment for comparable 4 – # 45 Lynnbrook. The data relied upon by Complainant’s appraiser did not constitute substantial and persuasive evidence to support the adjustment.The Hearing Officer erred in letting the time of sale adjustment for the45 Lynnbrook property to stand.Accordingly, the Decision is to be modified by removing the time of sale adjustment to this property.

Subject Lot Size

The final allegation of error relates to the subject’s lot size.Complainants’ appraiser used the lot size shown by county records (1.22 acres),^[xvii] which was later corrected.Respondent’s appraiser used the corrected lot size (1.5362 acres).^[xviii]A portion of the subject lot has a creek running through it, is in the flood plain and there is a sewer line easement over part of the lot.^[xix]It is unclear as to how much or even if the area in the flood plain was addressed in Respondent’s adjustment on this point.Furthermore, neither of the appraisers provided supporting documentation in their appraisals to establish the basis for the adjustments.That is the substantiation for the specific dollar adjustments for this factor.The difference of 13,774 between the lot sizes used by the two appraisers, under these circumstances appears to be de minimis.In light of these factors, the Hearing Officer did not err in simply allowing each appraisal to stand on this point.

Modification of Hearing Officer Adjusted Sales Prices

Removing the time of sale adjustment made by Complainant’s appraiser from the Adjusted Sale Price which the Hearing Officer included in his Decision,^[xx] results in the following:

True value in money for the subject property as of January 1, 2009, is set at $422,000, assessed residential value of $80,180

ORDER

The Hearing Officer Decision is modified, in that the assessed value as residential property for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at:$80,180.The Decision and Order of the hearing officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, except as hereinabove modified, is 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 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 October 25, 2011.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

Randy B. Holman, Commissioner

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is SET ASIDE.True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $410,000, a residential assessed value of $77,900.Complainants appeared by Counsel, Patrick W. Keefe, Ellisville, Missouri.Respondent appeared by Associate County Counselor Paula J. Lemerman.

Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.

ISSUE

Complainants appeal, on the ground of overvaluation and discrimination,[1] the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property. The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2009. 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 from the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization. A hearing was conducted on February 23, 2011, at the St. Louis County Government Center, Clayton, Missouri.
2. Assessment. The Assessor appraised the property at $464,500, a residential assessment of $88,260.[2] The Board sustained the assessment.[3]
3. Subject Property. The subject property is located at 10 Lynbrook Rd, Frontenac, Missouri. The property is identified by locator number 19N320026. The property consists of an irregular shaped lot measuring 131 x 213 x 221 feet.[4] The acreage of the subject lot is 1.5362[5] acre. The lot is improved with a one-story single-family residence with predominately brick construction built in 1954. The gross living area is 2,869[6] or 2,696[7] square feet. There is a full basement with approximately 1,879[8] or 1,900[9] square feet and 376[10] or 275[11] square feet of finish.

The home has nine rooms, three bedrooms, two full and one half baths. The condition of the improvements is considered to be average by Complainants’ and Respondent’s appraisers. The quality of construction was considered by Complainants’ appraiser to be average to good, and Respondent’s appraiser rated the quality of construction as average.[12]

4. New Construction and Improvements. The kitchen and hallway full bathroom were remodeled in 2009 after the effective date of the appraisal. However, no evidence was tendered by Respondent or Complainant which would provide a basis for an adjustment to the 2010 valuation of the property. Therefore the assessed value for 2009 remains the assessed value for 2010.[13]
5. Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant tendered the following exhibits which were received into evidence:

EXHIBIT	DESCRIPTION
A	Appraisal Report – Robert Emmenegger, Jr – State Certified Appraiser
B	Written Direct Testimony – Robert Emmenegger, Jr.

 

Mr. Emmenegger developed the sales comparison approach to arrive at a conclusion of value of $360,000, an indicated per square foot value of $125.48. He relied upon five sales to support his opinion of value. A summary of the sales utilized by the appraiser is as follows:

Properties

Sale Price

Sq. Ft.

PriceGross

LivingNet/Gross

AdjustmentAdjusted

Sale Price10074 Briarwood$230,000$137.151,67723.3%/25.1%$283,6801 Lynnbrook$410,000$190.522,152-3.3%/18.5%396,38029 Glen Abbey*$450,000$189.952,369-17.9%/28.3%369,50045 Lynnbrook$485,000$224.122,164-32.4%/46.1%327,64041 Eversdale$286,450$91.343,136-3.0%/6.5%277,770Average$372,290$166.622,300 $330,990Median$410,000$189.952,164 $327,64010 Lynnbrook+$360,000$125.482,869  

*Sale used in Respondent’s Appraisal; + – Value Concluded by Complainant’s Appraiser

6. Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent tendered the following exhibits which were received into evidence:[14]

EXHIBIT	DESCRIPTION
1	Appraisal Report – Ross Hackman – Residential Appraiser
2	Written Direct Testimony – Ross Hackman
3	Property Record Card (PRC)– subject property
4	PRC – 10074 Briarwood Dr. – Complainant’s Comp 1
5	PRC – 1 Lynnbrook Rd. – Complainant’s Comp 2
6	PRC – 29 Glen Abbey Dr. – Complainant’s Comp 3
7	PRC – 45 Lynnbrook Rd. – Complainant’s Comp 4
8	PRC – 41 Eversdale Ct. – Complainant’s Comp 5
12	Photo Front of Subject
13	Plat of Subject Lot

 

Mr. Hackman developed the sales comparison approach to arrive at a conclusion of value of $435,000, an indicated per square foot value of $161.47.[15] He relied upon four sales to support his opinion of value. A summary of the sales and listing utilized by the appraiser is as follows:

Properties

Sale Price

Sq. Ft.

PriceGross

LivingNet/Gross

AdjustmentAdjusted

Sale Price30 Lynnbrook$569,500$198.022,876-21.9%/29.4%$444,90044 Lynnbrook$639,000$218.612,923-28.5%/32.6%$457,10029 Glen Abbey*$450,000$210.872,134-7.0%/28.6%$422,70011 Westfield$471,000$193.272,437-9.0%/28.0%$428,700Average$532,375$205.192,593 $438,350Median$520,250$204.452,657 $436,80010 Lynnbrook+$435,000$161.472,696  

*Sale used in Complainant’s Appraisal; + – Value Concluded by Respondent’s Appraiser

7. True Value in Money. The true value in money for the subject property as of January 1, 2009, is $410,000, a residential assessed value of $77,900. See, Hearing Officer Finds Value – Conclusion of Value, infra.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

Jurisdiction

The Commission has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious. 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.[16]

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.[17] The constitutional mandate is to find the true value in money for the property under appeal. By statute real and tangible personal property is assessed at set percentages of true value in money.[18] In an overvaluation appeal, true value in money for the property being appealed must be determined based upon the evidence on the record that is probative on the issue of the fair market value of the property under appeal.

Presumption In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.[19] This presumption is a rebuttable rather than a conclusive presumption. It places the burden of going forward with some substantial evidence on the taxpayer – Complainant. When some substantial evidence is produced by the Complainant, “however slight,” the presumption disappears and the Hearing Officer, as trier of facts, receives the issue free of the presumption.[20] 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.[21] Upon presentation of the Complainant’s evidence[22] the presumption in this appeal disappeared. The Respondent’s evidence[23] likewise rebutted the presumption that the Board had correctly valued Complainants’ property. The case is decided free of the presumption.

Standard for Valuation

Section 137.115, RSMo, 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.[24] True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use.[25] It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[26] 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 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.[27]

 

Both appraisers arrived at their conclusion of value for the property under appeal relying on the Standard for Valuation.[28]

Hearing Officer Finds Value

The case provides the Hearing Officer with adequate sales data from Complainant’s and Respondent’s appraisers to make a determination of the indicated fair market value of Complainant’s property as of January 1, 2009. Each appraisal standing on its own, without the other appraisal being placed in the scales, provided sufficient weight (substantial and persuasive evidence) to tilt the scales in the affirmative for a given opinion of value. Taken as a whole, the Emmenegger and Hackman appraisals provide substantial and persuasive evidence upon which the conclusion of value can be made. Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[29] 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.[30]

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.[31] 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.[32] Both appraisers developed and concluded value under the sales comparison approach to value. This is generally recognized as the most appropriate and most reliable methodology for appraising single-family owner-occupied residences.

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 or 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 opinions or inferences upon the subject and must be otherwise reliable, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.[33] The facts and data relied upon by each appraiser were of a type reasonably relied upon by appraisal experts in arriving at a conclusion of value. The facts and data utilized by each appraiser were of sufficient reliability for development of the individual appraisals.

Sale Comparables To Conclude Value

Complainant’s sale comparables 2, 3 and 4 are appropriate for utilization to arrive at an indicated value for the subject. The per square foot sales prices on Comps 1 and 5 establish these two properties are outliers to the other Emmenegger and Hackman sales. Respondent’s sale comparables 1, 2, 3 and 4 are also appropriate for finding the fair market value of the subject. These six comparables[34] will be used to find value.

Recalculation of Emmenegger Gross Living Area Adjustments

and Application of a Fireplace Adjustment

 

For the sake of consistency, the square footage for the Complainant’s comparables 2, 3 and 4 will be altered to reflect the square footage of gross living area shown by the County records. Likewise, the gross living area for the subject will be adjusted to the County record figure of 2,696 for purposes of recalculating the adjustment for gross living area. Mr. Emmenegger used a $40 per square foot adjustment. Mr. Hackman use $55 per square foot for his adjustment. The Hearing Officer has no basis upon which he can in good faith and sound logic select one rate of adjustment over the other. Nor is the Hearing Officer persuaded that he has any basis to simply average the two amounts and apply a per square foot adjustment of $47.50 to both the Emmenegger and Hackman comparables. For purposes of recalculating the adjustment to Complainants’ comparables the $40 per square foot amount will be used. Relying on the foregoing, the change in the adjustments for gross living area for the eight comparables would be as follows:

Properties

Emmenegger

AdjustmentCorrected

Adjustment1 Lynnbrook+28,680+$21,76029 Glen Abbey+$20,000+22,48045 Lynnbrook+28,200+21,280

 

The subject property has two fireplaces. Mr. Emmenegger did not adjust his three comparables for the fact that they each only had a single fireplace. Therefore, an adjustment of +$4,000 as used by Mr. Hackman in his appraisal will be added to the adjusted sale price for Complainants’ three comparables to establish the values to be considered in the Hearing Officer’s analysis.

Adjusted Sales Prices to Conclude Value

With the adjustments just explained, the Adjusted Sales Prices of the sales comparables are:

Properties

Adjusted

Sales PriceAdjusted Per

Sq Ft Value[35]Per Sq Ft

Sale Price30 Lynnbrook – RP – 1$444,800$164.98$198.0244 Lynnbrook – RP – 2$457,100$168.43$218.611 Lynnbrook – CP – 2$393,460$145.94$190.5229 Glen Abbey – RP – 3$422,700$156.79$210.8729 Glen Abbey – CP – 3$375,980$139.46$210.8711 Westfield – RP – 4$428,700$159.01$193.2745 Lynnbrook – CP – 4$324,720$120.45$224.12High$457,100$168.43$224.12Median$422,700$156.79$210.87Low$324,720$120.45$190.52Average$406,780$150.73$205.91

 

All of the comparables, on an adjusted per square foot value, fall below the range for the per square foot sales prices. This is attributable in large part to the adjustment to certain comps to account for the subject’s inferior location/view, i.e. backing to an interstate. On the factor of square foot of living area Respondent’s Comps 1, 2 and 4 come closest to the subject, with respective variations of +180, +227 and – 259 square feet. However, the net adjustments for Comps 1 and 2 are -21.9% and -28.5% respectively, due to the subject being inferior in Condition to these two comps. Respondent’s Comp 3 and Complainants’ Comps 2, 3 and 4 all fall outside of the preferred 500 square foot standard by 32 to 62 square feet. This is not fatal for inclusion of these sales in the final determination of value. However, the other three sales have a higher level of comparability on this factor.

Conclusion of Value

Weight is given to the seven concluded values for the six sales listed above. However, additional weight is given to Respondent’s Comparable 4 to arrive at a final value. After consideration of the foregoing, the final value indicated is $409,520, rounded to $410,000.

ORDER

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

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $77,900.

Application for Review

A party may file with the Commission 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. [36]

 

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. If no Application for Review is filed with the Commission within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service, the Collector, 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.

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 27, 2011.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

W. B. Tichenor, Senior Hearing Officer

 

[i] May 27, 2011 – Received by the Commission.

 

[ii] June 30, 2011 – Received by the Commission

 

[iii] July 22, 2011 – Received by Commission

 

[iv] 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).

 

[v] 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).

 

[vi] Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Lowe v. Lombardi, 957 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997); Forms World, Inc. v. Labor and Industrial Relations Com’n, 935 S.W.2d 680 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996); Evangelical Retirement Homes v. STC, 669 S.W.2d 548 (Mo. 1984); Pulitzer Pub. Co. v. Labor and Indus. Relations Commission, 596 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. 1980); St. Louis County v. STC, 562 S.W.2d 334 (Mo. 1978); St. Louis County v. STC, 406 S.W.2d 644 (Mo. 1966).

 

[vii] The Hearing Officer concluded value relying on sales of six properties, 3 of which were used by Complainant’s appraiser and four of which were used by the appraiser Respondent. One of the sales was used by both appraisers, hence only six sale properties.

 

[viii] The improvements are torn down, so that the lot can be used to build a new home.

 

[ix] TR. 46:22 – 47:5; 49:2 – 4; 52:14 – 19; 53:17 – 19

 

[x] Exhibit 1 – Assessment Information and Tax Data – Neighborhood Description, Addendum Page 1 of 6

 

[xi] TR. 47:5 -12; 53:12 – 19

 

[xii] Exhibit 5

 

[xiii] Exhibit 7

 

[xiv] Respondent’s assertion of error – Application for Review, Item 4, p. 2.

 

[xv] Respondent’s Reply – Response to Argument a, Item 4, p. 2

 

[xvi] TR. 62:10 – 63:21

 

[xvii] Exhibit A

 

[xviii] Exhibit 1

 

[xix] Exhibit 1, Addendum Page 4 of 6 – Comments on the Sales Comparison Approach – Site.

 

[xx] DECISION – Adjusted Sales Prices to Conclude Value, p. 9

 

[xxi] Calculation based upon gross living area of 2,696

 

 

 

[1] Complaint for Review of assessment marked as grounds for appeal Discrimination. Complainant failed to tender any evidence to establish an intentional plan by the assessing officials to assess the property under appeal at a ratio greater than 19% of true value in money, or at a ratio greater than the average 2009 residential assessment ratio for St. Louis County. Accordingly, the claim of discrimination is deemed to have been abandoned. As was so noted at the opening of the evidentiary hearing by the Hearing Officer without objection by Counsel for Complainant.

 

[2] Residential property is assessed at 19% of true value in money (fair market value), Section 137.115.5(1), RSMo

 

[3] BOE Decision Letter; Exhibit 1 – Addendum – Assessment Information and Tax Data, Page 1 of 6

 

[4] Exhibit A – Site Dimensions, Page 1 of 6; Exhibit 1 – Site Dimensions, Page 1 of 2

 

[5] Exhibit 1 – Site Area, Page 1 of 6; Exhibit 13

 

[6] Exhibit A – Improvements – Gross Living Area Above Grade, Page 1 of 6

 

[7] Exhibit 1 – Improvements – Gross Living Area Above Grade, Page 1 of 2, corrected from 2694 to 2696 at hearing

 

[8] Exhibit A – Improvements – Basement Area, Page 1 of 6

 

[9] Exhibit 1 – Improvements – Basement Area, Page 1 of 2

 

[10] Exhibit A – Improvements – Basement Finish, Page 1 of 6

 

[11] Exhibit 1 – Improvements – Basement Finish – Page 1 of 2. Under Addendum – Description of the Improvements-Subject property, Page 2 of 6, Respondent’s appraiser notes “approximately 275 square feet of finish,” under Improvements – Basement Finish, Respondent’s appraiser notes 14%, which would calculate to 266.

 

[12] Exhibit A & Exhibit 1 – Sales Grids

 

[13] Section 137.115.1, RSMo.

 

[14] Exhibits 9, 10 and 11 were withdrawn at hearing.

 

[15] Exhibit 1 – Summary – Sales Comparison Approach, Page 2 of 2

 

[16] Article X, Section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo.

 

[17] Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945

 

[18] Section 137.115.5, RSMo

 

[19] 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)

 

[20] United Missouri Bank of Kansas City v. March, 650 S.W.2d 678, 680-81 (Mo. App. 1983), citing to State ex rel. Christian v. Lawry, 405 S.W.2d 729, 730 (Mo. App. 1966) and cases therein cited.

 

[21] Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959)

 

[22] Exhibits A & B and Testimony of Complainant’s Expert Witness at hearing

 

[23] Exhibits 1 and 2 and Testimony of Respondent’s Expert Witness at hearing.

 

[24] 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).

 

[25] Daly v. P. D. George Company, et al, 77 S.W.3d 645, 649 (Mo. App E.D. 2002), citing, Equitable Life Assurance Society v. STC, 852 S.W.2d 376, 380 (Mo. App. 1993); citing, Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. STC, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973).

 

[26] Hermel, supra.

 

[27] 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.

 

[28] Exhibit A – Definition of Market Value, Page 4 of 6; Exhibit 1 – Definition of “True Value in Money” As set forth by the state of Missouri – Signature and Certification Page

 

[29] See, Cupples-Hesse, supra.

 

[30] Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).

 

[31] See, Nance v. STC, 18 S.W.3d 611, at 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, supra; Xerox Corp. v. STC, 529 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1975).

 

[32] 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. Div. 2 1974).

 

[33] Section 490.065, RSMo; State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. McDonagh, 123 S.W.3d 146 (Mo. SC. 2004); 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. E.D. 1992).

 

[34] Appraisers’ Comp 3 is the property at 29 Glen Abbey Dr, therefore, there are six properties but seven adjusted comparables.

 

[35] Calculation based upon gross living area of 2,696

 

[36] Section 138.432, RSMo.