State Tax Commission of Missouri
MARY W. DIERBERG,)
)
Complainant,)
)
v.)Appeal Number 09-14593
)
JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR,)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,)
)
Respondent.)
ORDER
MODIFYING HEARING OFFICER DECISION
UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
On April 21, 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 $1,902,140, assessed residential value of $361,600.
Respondent timely filed his Application for Review of the Decision.[1]Complainant filed her Response.[2]Respondent filed his Reply.[3]Transcript received by Commission on August 12, 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.[4]
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.[5]
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.[6]
DECISION
Respondent’s Allegations of Hearing Officer Error
Respondent presents the following allegations of error by the Hearing Officer in rendering his Decision.[7]
1.The Hearing Officer erred in not addressing the validity of arbitrary and inconsistent time adjustments made to two sale properties by Complainant’s appraiser.
2.The Hearing Officer erred in not concluding that no time adjustment waswarranted for the period from 2006 to 2010, based on Respondent’s Exhibit 14.
3.The Hearing Officer erred in not making a location adjustment for two of the comparable sales used by Complainant’s appraiser.
4.The Hearing Officer erred in not rejecting condition/upgrade adjustments made by Complainant’s appraiser.
Based on the forgoing, Respondent prays the Commission reverse and modify the Decision and set value at $2,000,000.
Complainant’s Response to Allegations of Hearing Officer Error
1.Time adjustments made by Complainant’s appraiser were documented andreflected the variance in market conditions over a year’s time period.
2.Condition adjustments made by Complainant’s appraiser were supported by substantial evidence.
3.No credible evidence in support of the Respondent’s location adjustments was presented.
Commission Review
The three allegations of error involve the issues of adjustments for time, condition and location.
Time Adjustments
Based upon Respondent’s evidence no time adjustment was warranted for the Clermont and Glen Eagles sales.The Complainant’s evidence of a time adjustment is not found to be substantial and persuasive.The Hearing Officer erred in giving any weight to the Complainant’s time adjustments for these two sales.
Location Adjustment
Respondent’s appraisal made a location adjustment of +$75,000 each for the Fordyce and Clermont sales.Complainant’s appraisal made no location adjustment for these properties.
The sum total of the evidence to support the location adjustments to these two properties by Respondent’s appraiser consisted of the following, “Comps 1 [and] 2 . . . are located in typical subdivisions, lack country club grounds as well as the golf course and therefore, require an adjustment.”No evidence was provided as to how the adjustment of $75,000 was extracted from
any market data, nor does the record contain any evidence to rebut the appraiser’s unverified conclusion.
Complainant’s appraiser deemed his comparables to be in similar locations to the subject, which is across the street from a golf course.[8]Therefore, the conclusion of Complainant’s appraiser, that there was no need for an adjustment.No evidence was presented that would either support or rebut that conclusion.
Accordingly, the Hearing Officer was presented with two differing opinions as to whether a location adjustment should be made to two comparables.Neither opinion had been established by the appraisers presenting a market analysis to support either conclusion on the need or lack of need for a location adjustment.Each appraiser’s determination on this matter was apparently based upon simply their own personal experience or preference in the matter.Under such a circumstance, the Hearing Officer was justified in simply taking the unsubstantiated opinions of each appraiser at face value and letting their valuations of the two properties stand as to this factor of comparability.The Commission finds no basis to conclude that the Hearing Officer erred on this point.
Condition Adjustment
Respondent’s appraiser made a condition adjustment to the Fordyce and Clermont sales, each in the amount of -$125,000, but made no specific adjustment for updates.Complainant’s appraiser gave a condition adjustment of -$50,000 to each sale and then a -$200,000 to each sale for updates.The net effect is that as to the condition/update factor, the appraisers were $125,000 apart.The Hearing Officer’s determination on this matter equates to an adjustment of $187,500.
Complainant’s appraiser made his adjustment for updates based upon the comparison of his personal inspection of the subject and the sales information which he had on the two comparables.[9]The sales data sheets on the two properties provide substantiation to Complainant Appraiser’s conclusion as to extensive and recent updates.[10]The subject lacks updating and suffers from various deferred maintenance items.[11]Respondent’s assertion that the condition/upgrade adjustments of Complainant’s appraiser were made without adequate support is not well founded.
As with the location factor, neither Respondent’s nor Complainant’s appraiser made any specific analysis of data to arrive at their conclusion as to the adjustment for condition/upgrades.Respondent’s appraiser relied upon photographs of the subject and listing data on the comparables.Complainant’s appraiser relied upon his personal inspection of the subject and listing data on the comparables.Each then arrived at different amounts for the condition/upgrading adjustment.Given this situation, analysis of data to establish or rebut either of the two positions in the record, the Hearing Officer was justified in placing equal weight on the opinion of each appraiser relating to the condition/upgrading factor.
Summary
The Hearing Officer erred in his allowance for a time of sale adjustment to the Clermont and Glen Eagles sales.The adjusted sales prices for the three comparables used by both appraisers, without any time of sale adjustment produces the following mean and median values:
|
20 Fordyce |
$2,047,037 |
|
26 Clermont |
$2,056,425 |
|
41 Glen Eagle |
$1,903,100 |
The value of the subject falls within a range of $1,903,100 – $2,047,038 – $2,056,425.
The Commission finds the fair market value of the subject as of January 1, 2009 to be $2,000,000.
The Hearing Officer Decision is modified accordingly, in all other respects, said Decision is affirmed.
ORDER
The Hearing Officer Decision is modified, in that the assessed value as residential property for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at:$380,000.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 $1,903,140, a residential assessed value of $361,600.Complainant 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
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation and discrimination[12], 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. LouisCountyGovernmentCenter,Clayton,Missouri.
2.Assessment.The Assessor appraised the property at $2,096,400, a residential assessment of $398,320.[13]The Board sustained that assessment.[14]
3.Subject Property.The subject property is located at 39 Glen Eagles Drive, Ladue, Missouri.The property is identified by locator number 18L140012.The property consists of a two acre, more or less, lot.It is improved with a two-story, single-family residence built in 1929.The gross living area is 6,086[15] or 6,121.[16]The residence has a total of 13 rooms.There are either 5 or 7 bedrooms, 4 or 6 full baths and 2 or 4 half baths.[17]There are either 6 or 4 fireplaces.[18] There is a detached 5 car carriage house garage.The condition of the residence is average and the quality of materials and workmanship is good, consistent with surrounding properties.[19]
4.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 $1,750,000, an indicated per square foot value of $287.55.He relied upon six sales and a current listing 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. Price |
Gross Living |
Net/Gross Adjustment |
Adjusted Sale Price |
|
10 Briarcliff |
$1,720,000 |
$241.84 |
7,112 |
0.3%/10.8% |
$1,725,050 |
|
38 Briarcliff |
$1,750,000 |
$343.14 |
5,100 |
-4.1%/25.3% |
$1,677,450 |
|
20 Fordyce* |
$2,150,000 |
$340.95 |
6,306 |
-8.4%/17.6% |
$1,969,500 |
|
958 Terrill Farm |
$1,585,000 |
$372.64 |
4,250 |
5.1%/39.2% |
$1,665,300 |
|
26 Clermont* |
$2,195,000 |
$276.73 |
7,932 |
-28%/35.9% |
$1,579,750 |
|
41 Glen Eagles* |
$2,050,000 |
$290.99 |
7,045 |
-28.7%/30.9% |
$1,461,575 |
|
21 St. Andrew |
$1,899,000 |
$275.06 |
6,904 |
-15.6%/21.8% |
$1,603,650 |
|
Average |
$1,907,000 |
$305.91 |
|
|
$1,668,897 |
|
Median |
$1,899,000 |
$372.64 |
|
|
$1,665,300 |
*Sales used in Respondent’s Appraisal
There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2009, to January 1, 2010, therefore the assessed value for 2009 remains the assessed value for 2010.[20]
5.Respondent’s Evidence.Respondent tendered the following exhibits which were received into evidence:
|
EXHIBIT |
DESCRIPTION |
|
1 |
Appraisal Report – Robert Steven Koch – State Certified Appraiser |
|
2 |
Written Direct Testimony – Robert Steven Koch |
|
3 |
Summary of Multi-List Service Statistics |
|
4 |
Market Statistics Report |
|
5 |
Flood Insurance Rate Map |
|
6 |
Property Record Card – Subject Property |
|
7 – 13 |
PRC/Sale Listings/Photographs/Maps – Emmenegger Sales Comps |
Mr. Koch developed the sales comparison approach to arrive at a conclusion of value of $2,100,000, an indicated per square foot value of $343.09.[21]He relied upon six sales of five properties 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. Price |
Gross Living |
Net/Gross Adjustment |
Adjusted Sale Price |
|
20 Fordyce* |
$2,150,000 |
$321.47 |
6,688 |
0.0%/17.7% |
$2,150,600 |
|
26 Clermont* |
$2,195,000 |
$333.99 |
6,572 |
-1.5%/13.2 |
$2,161,900 |
|
943 Tirrill Farm |
$1,966,000 |
$288.61 |
6,812 |
3.5%/11.5% |
$2,034,700 |
|
12 Upper Ladue |
$1,750,000 |
$304.93 |
5,739 |
5.8%/22.4% |
$1,851,600 |
|
$2,855,000 |
$464.30 |
6,149 |
-2.2%/9.2% |
$2,792,800 |
|
|
41 Glen Eagles* |
$2,050,000 |
$333.39 |
6,149 |
.3%/12.8% |
$1,987,800 |
|
Average |
$2,161,000 |
$341.12 |
|
|
$1,858,028 |
|
Median |
$2,100,000 |
$333.69 |
|
|
$2,156,250 |
*Sales used in Complainant’s Appraisal
6.Evidence of Increase in Value.In any case in St. Louis County where the assessor presents evidence which indicates a valuation higher than the value finally determined by the assessor or the value determined by the board of equalization, whichever is higher, for that assessment period, such evidence will only be received for the purpose of sustaining the assessor’s or board’s valuation, and not for increasing the valuation of the property under appeal.[23]Therefore, under the Commission rule just cited and Supreme Court decision[24] the assessed value could not be increased above $398,320 in this particular appeal.Respondent’s appraisal was not accepted for the purpose of raising the assessment above that assessed value.
7.True Value in Money.The true value in money for the subject property as of January 1, 2009, is $1,903,140, a residential assessed value of $361,600.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.[25]
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.[26]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.[27]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.[28]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.[29]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.[30]Upon presentation of the Complainant’s evidence[31] the presumption in this appeal disappeared.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.[32]True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use.[33]It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[34]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.[35]
Each appraiser concluded value under the Standard for Valuation.[36]
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 Koch 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.[37]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.[38]
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.[39] 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.[40]In the vast majority of owner occupied residential appeals, the sales comparison approach provides the superior indicator of fair market value.Such is the case in this instance.Both appraisers were of the opinion that the subject property should be valued under this methodology.The appraisers did not attempt to develop the cost or income approaches.Neither were, in fact, appropriate for this appraisal problem.
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.[41]The data upon which both appraisers relied were of the type reasonably relied upon by appraisal experts in arriving at an indicated value for a given property in the appraisal process.
Comparables Gross Living Area
The various adjustments made by each appraiser were appropriate for this appraisal problem.One area of significant variance involves the gross living area of the comparables utilized by each appraiser.Mr. Koch used the square footage for the subject as shown by the county records and also for his comparables.Mr. Emmenegger used the gross square footage for his sales from the MLS listings for the properties.The difference between the county record on this point and figures presented in MLS data can sometimes be significant.The following illustrates the variance between the county record and the MLS data for Complainant’s comparables.[42]
|
Properties |
County Square Footage |
MLS Square Footage |
|
10 Briarcliff |
7,112 |
7,112 |
|
36 Briarcliff |
4,760 |
5,100 |
|
20 Fordyce |
6,688 |
6,306 |
|
958 Terrill Farm |
4,355 |
4,250 |
|
26 Clermont |
7,115 |
7,932 |
|
41 Glen Eagles |
6,149 |
7,045 |
|
21 St. Andrews |
6,904 |
6,904 |
Recalculation of Emmenegger Gross Living Area Adjustments
For the sake of consistency, the square footage for the Complainant’s comparables 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 Country record figure of 6,121 for purposes of recalculating the adjustment for gross living area.The difference in the dollar adjustment for this factor between the appraisers was not significant.Mr. Emmenegger used a $75 per square foot adjustment.Mr. Koch use $80 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 $77.50 to both the Emmenegger and Koch comparables.For purposes of recalculating the adjustment to Complainant’s comparables the $75 per square foot amount will be used.
Relying on the foregoing, the change in the adjustments for gross living area for the seven comparables used in Exhibit A would be as follows:
|
Properties |
Emmenegger Adjustment |
Corrected Adjustment |
|
10 Briarcliff |
-$76,950 |
-$74,325 |
|
36 Briarcliff |
+$73,950 |
+$102,075 |
|
20 Fordyce |
-$16,500 |
-$42,525 |
|
958 Terrill Farm |
+$137,700 |
+132,450 |
|
26 Clermont |
-$138,450 |
-$74,550 |
|
41 Glen Eagles |
-$71,925 |
-2,100 |
|
21 St. Andrews |
-$61,350 |
-$58,725 |
When the correct adjustments are applied to each of the individual sales the following adjusted sales prices are concluded:
Properties |
Adjusted Sales Price |
|
10 Briarcliff |
$1,727,675 |
|
36 Briarcliff |
$1,705,575 |
|
20 Fordyce |
$1,943,475 |
|
958 Terrill Farm |
$1,660,050 |
|
26 Clermont |
$1,643,650 |
|
41 Glen Eagles |
$1,531,400 |
|
21 St. Andrews |
$1,606,275 |
Use of 2010 – 41 Glen Eagles Sale
This is one of the three sales which were used by both Mr. Emmenegger and Mr. Koch in their appraisals.Mr. Emmenegger used the 2010 sale of the property and made a time of sale adjustment to account for its sale 19 months after the valuation date.Mr. Koch listed both the June 2007 and August 2010 sales of this property.However, he did not rely on either.
Mr. Emmenegger on the other hand deemed the 2010 sale comparable and relevant.The Hearing Officer agrees.This is substantiated by Mr. Koch’s conclusion, “The indicated value of the 2010 sale falls into the typical value range.”[43]Respondent’s Comp 4 sold 20 months prior to the valuation date accordingly, a sale 19 months after is time relevant.Several factors of comparability to the subject are compelling.The home at 41 Glen Eagles was built just six years prior to the subject home.In gross living area, it is only 28 square feet larger than the subject. It is the neighboring property to the subject.Accordingly, the final conclusion of value must take into account the 2010 sale of the subject neighboring property.
Universe of Sales to Find Value
The following sales provide the applicable universe of indicated values for the present valuation problem:
|
Adjusted Sales Price |
||
|
10 Briarcliff – CP – 1 |
$1,727,675 |
$282.25 |
|
36 Briarcliff – CP – 2 |
$1,705,575 |
$278.64 |
|
20 Fordyce – CP – 3 |
$1,943,475 |
$317.51 |
|
20 Fordyce – RP – 1 |
$2,150,600 |
$351.35 |
|
958 Tirrill Farm – CP – 4 |
$1,660,050 |
$271.21 |
|
943 Tirrill Farm – RP – 3 |
$2,034,700 |
$332.41 |
|
26 Clermont – CP – 7 |
$1,643,650 |
$268.53 |
|
26 Clermont – RP – 2 |
$2,161,900 |
$353.19 |
|
12 Upper Ladue – RP – 4 |
$1,851,600 |
$302.50 |
|
41 Glen Eagles – CP – 8 |
$1,531,400 |
$250.19 |
|
41 Glen Eagles – RP – 6 |
$1,987,800 |
$324.75 |
|
21 St. Andrews – CP – 9 |
$1,606,275 |
$262.42 |
|
Average |
$1,833,725 |
$299.58 |
|
Median |
$1,789,637 |
$292.38 |
The range of the original sales prices on a per square foot basis for these sales ranged from $241.84 to $372.94, with an average of $310.34 and a median of $313.20.The adjusted per square foot values for the 9 properties come within a range of $250.19 to $353.19, thereby falling within the unadjusted per square foot sales price range.The adjusted per square foot average is at 96.5 percent of the average per square foot sale price.The adjusted per square foot median is at 93.4 percent of the median per square foot sale price.The adjusted sales prices for the 9 properties establish a range from $1,531,400 to $2,161,900, with an average of $1,833,725 and a median of $1,789,637.
Complainant’s appraiser ultimately concluded his value giving the most weight to the two Briarcliff properties and the Fordyce sale.These properties would support a value in the range of $1,705,575 to $1,943,475.Respondent’s appraiser gave the greatest weight to the Clermont and Tirrill Farms properties which establishes a range of values of $2,034,700 to $2,161,900.
The three sales used by both Mr. Emmenegger and Mr. Koch establish the following indications of value:
|
Properties |
Adjusted Sales Price |
Per Sq. Ft Value |
|
20 Fordyce – CP – 3 |
$1,943,475 |
$317.51 |
|
20 Fordyce – RP – 1 |
$2,150,600 |
$351.35 |
|
Fordyce – Mean/Median |
$2,047,037 |
$334.43 |
|
26 Clermont – CP – 7 |
$1,643,650 |
$268.53 |
|
26 Clermont – RP – 2 |
$2,161,900 |
$353.19 |
|
Clermont – Mean/Median |
$1,902,775 |
$310.86 |
|
41 Glen Eagles – CP – 8 |
$1,531,400 |
$250.19 |
|
41 Glen Eagles – RP – 6 |
$1,987,800 |
$324.75 |
|
Glen Eagles – Mean/Median |
$1,759,600 |
$287.47 |
|
Average |
$1,903,137 |
$310.92 |
|
Median |
$1,965,637 |
$312.13 |
Conclusion of Value
The value for the subject can be concluded to be in that range of $1,759,600 – $1,902,775 – $2,047,037.The Hearing Officer finds the fair market value of the subject as of January 1, 2009, to be $1,903,140.
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 $361,600.
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, MO65102-0146, 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. [46]
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 21, 2011.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI
W. B. Tichenor
Senior Hearing Officer
[4] 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).
[5] 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).
[6] 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).
[7] The Hearing Officer concluded value relying on sales on properties on Fordyce, Clermont and Glen Eagles which were used by both Complainant’s and Respondent’s Appraisers.Respondent’s Application for Review endorsed the reliance by the Hearing Officer on these three sales.
[12] 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.
[13] Residential property is assessed at 19% of true value in money (fair market value), Section 137.115.5(1), RSMo
[14] Complainant for Review of Assessment, BOE Decision Letter, Exhibit 1 – Addendum – assessment Information and Tax Data, Page 1 of 6
[17] Exhibit A – Sales Grid lists 5 bedrooms, 4 full and 2 half baths;Exhibit 1 – Sales Grid and Description of the Improvements lists 7 bedrooms, 6 full bathrooms and 4 half bathrooms.
[21] Calculated based uponMr. Koch’s utilization of a gross living area for the subject of 6,121 square feet.
[22] Mr. Koch offered the two sales of this property for informational purposes only.Exhibit 1 – Addendum – Comments on the Sales Comparison Approach, Page 5 of 6
[24] The Supreme Court of Missouri has interpreted Section 138.060.The Court stated:
“Section 138.060 prohibits an assessor from advocating for or presenting evidence advocating for a higher ‘valuation’ than the ‘value’ finally determined by the assessor. … . Because the legislature uses the singular terms ‘valuation’ and ‘value’ in the statute, however, it clearly was not referring to both true market value and assessed value.While the assessor establishes both true market value and assessed value, which are necessary components of a taxpayer’s assessment, as noted previously, the assessed value is the figure that is multiplied against the actual tax rate to determine the amount of tax a property owner is required to pay.The assessed value is the ‘value that is finally determined’ by the assessor for the assessment period and is the value that limits the assessor’s advocacy and evidence.Section 138.060.By restricting the assessor from advocating for a higher assessed valuation than that finally determined by the assessor for the relevant assessment period, the legislature prevents an assessor from putting a taxpayer at risk of being penalized with a higher assessment for challenging an assessor’s prior determination of the value of the taxpayer’s property.”State ex rel. Ashby Road Partners, LLC et al v. STC and Muehlheausler, 297 S.W.3d 80, 87-88 (Mo 8/4/09)
[28] 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)
[29] 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.
[30] Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959)
[32] 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).
[33] 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).
[35] 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.
[36] Exhibit A – Definition of Market Value – Page 4 of 6; Exhibit 1 – Scope of Work, Assumptions and Limiting Conditions – Definition of “True Value in Money” as Set Forth by the State of Missouri, Page 2 of 2
[39] 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).
[40] 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).
[41] 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).
[44] Exhibit A only listed 7 properties, however, the page which contained Comp 4, also had space for Comp 5 and Comp 6, but was not used by the appraiser, but an additional preprinted form page was used which listed comps 7, 8 and 9.