Matthew & Angelique McDonough v. Scott Shipman, Assessor St Charles County

March 8th, 2016

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

 

MATTHEW & ANGELIQUE MCDONOUGH, )  
  )  
Complainants, )  
  )  
v. ) Appeal No.      15-32851
  )  
SCOTT SHIPMAN, ASSESSOR, )  
ST. CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI, )  
  )  
Respondent. )  

 

DECISION AND ORDER

AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION

UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

 

On March 8, 2016, Senior Hearing Officer John J. Treu (Senior Hearing Officer) entered his Decision and Order (Decision) affirming the assessment by the Board of Equalization of St. Charles County (BOE), which sustained the assessed value for the subject property (the Property) for tax year 2015 at $112,734.

Matthew and Angelique McDonough (Complainants) subsequently filed their Application for Review of the Decision with the State Tax Commission (the Commission). Scott Shipman, Assessor of St. Charles County, (Respondent) filed his Response.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Standard of Review

A party subject to a Decision and Order of a Hearing Officer with the State Tax Commission may file an application requesting the case be reviewed by the Commission. Section 138.432 RSMo Cum. Supp. 2015; 12 CSR 30-3.080(4).  The Commission may then summarily allow or deny the request.  Section 138.432; 12 CSR 30-3.080(5).  The Commission 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 Commission.  Section 138.432; 12 CSR 30-3.080(5)(A).

The Senior 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. St. Louis County v. State Tax Commission, 515 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. 1974).  The relative weight to be accorded any relevant factor in a particular case is for the Senior Hearing Officer to decide. St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977); St. Louis County, 515 S.W.2d at 450; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968).  Likewise, the Commission is free to consider all pertinent facts and give them such weight as reasonably the Commission deems them entitled.

The Commission, having reviewed the record and having considered the Decision of the Senior Hearing Officer and the briefs of the parties, enters its Decision and Order. Segments of the Senior Hearing Officer’s Decision have been incorporated into our Decision and Order without further reference.

DECISION

Complainants’ Points on Review

            Complainants assert the following points in support of their Application for Review:

  1. The Senior Hearing Officer erred in affirming the BOE’s valuation of the subject property because Respondent “knowingly disregarded comparable homes” in the neighborhood of the subject property, which adversely affected the determination of true market value of the subject property; and
  2. Respondent’s method of analyzing comparable properties was discriminatory because the appraisal report used by Respondent to support his opinion of the true market value of the subject property was flawed in that Respondent did not use 14 comparables, which Complainant argues “match the square footage and general characteristics” of the subject property and sold during the 20 months prior to the evidentiary hearing.

Commission’s Decision

For the reasons set forth below in response to the points just stated, the Commission finds Complainants’ arguments to be not persuasive to warrant either a modification or overturning of the Senior Hearing Officer’s Decision.

Factual and Procedural History

            The subject property consists of a .49 acre tract of land improved by a single family, residential, brick, stone veneer and vinyl sided, 1-story style home built in 2013.  It has 2,668 square feet of living area.  Amenities include three bedrooms, three full bathrooms, a three car attached garage, a deck, a patio, and a porch.  (Exhibit 1)  Complainants purchased the subject property in March 2014 for $557,339.  (Exhibit 1)  After Complainants purchased the subject property, the basement was finished in mid-August 2014, including a new deck and patio. (Exhibit C)               

Complainants appealed Respondent’s $593,339 valuation of the subject property to the BOE. (Complaint)  The BOE subsequently affirmed Respondent’s determination of TMV.  (BOE Decision)

            Complainants filed a Complaint for Review of Assessment with the Commission alleging overvaluation.  On February 3, 2016, the Senior Hearing Officer conducted the evidentiary hearing in which Complainant introduced the following exhibits into evidence:

Exhibit A Summary
Exhibit B Home Sales in Neighborhood
Exhibit C 14 Comparable Properties
Exhibit D Original Home Appraisal & Related Documents
Exhibit E Properties Which Complainants Contend Are Not Comparable

 

Respondent objected to all of the exhibits as to relevance, hearsay, and to the extent that each exhibit related to settlement negotiations. The Senior Hearing Officer overruled the objections and received all of the exhibits into the record to be given such weight, if any, as deemed appropriate.  Complainants did not offer any statistically-based evidence or expert testimony to support a claim of discrimination. Respondent offered into evidence Exhibit 1, which consisted of the Appraisal Report for the subject property prepared by Missouri State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser Christina A. Aguilar (the Appraiser).The Appraiser opined that the TMV of the subject property as of January 1, 2015, was $600,000.

            On March 8, 2016, the Senior Hearing Officer entered his Decision affirming the BOE’s FMV of the Property.  The Senior Hearing Officer found that Complainants had failed to meet their burden of rebutting the presumption correct valuation by the BOE while Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence to support the BOE’s valuation of the subject property.  Specifically, the Senior Hearing Officer found that:

  • Respondent initially appraised the property at $593,339 as of January 1, 2015, resulting in an assessed value of $112,734;
  • The BOE sustained Respondent’s valuation of the Property of $593,339;
  • Complainant Matthew McDonough, who presented Complainants’ evidence, was neither a licensed real estate appraiser nor a real estate broker, and he was not an expert in the appraisal of real property;
  • Complainant Mathew McDonough raised the possibility that certain properties in the neighborhood of the subject property should have been used as comparables or that other possible comparables existed but did not prove the valuation of the subject property as of January 1, 2015;
  • Complainant Matthew McDonough’s questions during the evidentiary hearing posed more of a discrimination type claim, but such a claim was not the basis of the appeal filed by Complainants;
  • Even if Complainants had raised a claim of discrimination in the complaint, Complainants did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to support a claim of discrimination, which requires (1) proving the true value in money of the subject property on the tax day in question; and (2) showing an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessing officials, resulting in an assessment of the subject property at a greater percentage of value than other property, generally, within the same class within the same taxing jurisdiction;
  • Complainants did not establish that the difference in the assessment ratio of the subject property and the average assessment ratio in St. Charles to be grossly excessive;
  • Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence, i.e., the report of a state certified appraiser, to support the valuation of the BOE, even though Respondent was under no burden to produce any evidence.

 

The Senior Hearing Officer found that the Appraiser had used six comparable sales in arriving at her opinion of value and that one of the sales was the subject property in March 2014. The Senior Hearing Officer noted that the comparables were located in what the Appraiser determined were similar neighborhoods and that the Appraiser had made market based adjustments to each comparable.  The Senior Hearing Officer concluded that Complainants had failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct valuation by the BOE, which independently would result in the BOE’s valuation being affirmed.  The Senior Hearing Officer further concluded that Respondent had presented substantial and persuasive evidence to support the BOE’s determination of value, which constituted a second independent reason to affirm the BOE’s determination of value.

 

Discrimination

            In their Application for Review, Complainants claim that the Senior Hearing Officer’s Decision was erroneous because the subject property was taxed at a greater percentage of value than other homes of the same class in the subject property’s subdivision.  Complainants also argue that the Appraiser’s report received into evidence during the evidentiary hearing was discriminatory because Respondent knowingly disregarded comparable homes in the subject property’s subdivision.  Specifically, Complainants argue that only one of the five comparables within the Appraiser’s report was in the subject property’s neighborhood.  Complainants also argue that an “abundance of comparable properties” within the subject property’s neighborhood were available to compare to the subject property.

In his Response to Complainant’s Application for Review, Respondent argues that the issue of intentional discrimination was not raised in Complainant’s original complaint and, in any event, that Complainant was unable to provide any evidence of discrimination to carry his burden of proof.

In discrimination appeals, there are only two elements to be established: (1) the fair market value of the subject property on the tax day at issue; and (2) the median assessment ratio by showing either (a) an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessing officials resulting in an assessment of that property at a greater percentage of value than other property, generally, within the same class within the same taxing jurisdiction or (b) that the level of an assessment is so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment. Zimmerman v. Mid-America Financial Corporation, 481 S.W.3d 564, 571 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015); State ex rel Ashby Road Partners, LLC v State Tax Commission, 297 S.W.3d 80, 85 (Mo banc 2009); Savage v. State Tax Commission, 722 S.W.2d 72 (Mo. banc 1986); Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003).

In cases where intentional discrimination is not shown, the Commission refrains from correcting assessments that reflect no more than de minimus errors of judgment on the part of assessors. Mid-America Financial Corporation, 481 S.W.3d at 571. “Such a standard recognizes that ‘[w]hile practical uniformity is the constitutional goal, absolute uniformity is an unattainable ideal.’”   Id., quoting Savage, 722 S.W.2d at 78-79.  “’A mere overvaluation of a specific property does not establish a discrimination in the absence of a showing of an intentional plan of discrimination or a showing that there is an undervaluation in the average assessment, or that other property generally is undervalued . . . .’” Savage, 722 S.W.2d at 78, quoting Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Mo.1959).

The first element of the test is whether the evidence established the true market value of the subject property on the tax day at issue. According to the record before us, Complainants did not present substantial and persuasive evidence establishing their proposed value or to rebut the presumption of the BOE’s valuation of the subject property as of January 1, 2015.  Respondents presented substantial and persuasive evidence to support the BOE’s valuation of the subject property of $593,339 as of January 1, 2015.   In addition to the Appraiser’s report analyzing comparable sales and market based adjustments, Complainant presented evidence establishing that the subject property had been appraised and valued at $558,000 in 2014 around the time the residence was completed.  (Exhibit D)  Complainant presented evidence establishing that improvements, including nearly 2,000 square feet of basement finish, a patio, and deck, were added to the subject property following the appraisal (Exhibit 1).  Therefore, the Senior Hearing Officer’s finding that Respondent’s evidence support the BOE’s determination of value is not in error.

We find that Complainant failed to prove the first element of the test, fair market value. Regarding the second element of the test – whether intentional discrimination occurred or whether the level of assessment was so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment – we find the following.  The Missouri Supreme Court has held that the proper method of analyzing a claim of discrimination compares the median level of assessment for similarly-situated properties – in this appeal, residential properties located in St. Charles County as of January 1, 2015 – to the actual level of assessment imposed on the property.  Respondent applied the statutory 19% assessment ratio to the fair market value of $593,339 to arrive at an assessed value of $112,734.  However, Complainants did not provide substantial evidence showing that other property in the same general class, residential, was actually undervalued.  Savage, 722 S.W.2d at 78, quoting Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 700.

In this case, Complainants’ documentation regarding other purportedly comparable properties in St. Charles County did not establish the fair market value of those properties as of January 1, 2015. (Exhibit B)  Complainants’ documentation provided the Senior Hearing Officer with raw data about each of Complainants’ comparable properties, but Complainants did not conduct any market analysis to draw comparisons and contrasts between the comparable properties and the subject property.  Additionally, Complainants did not present the testimony of an expert in statistical analysis to explain or to establish that the number of properties documented was statistically significant or that they were undervalued.  Consequently, the Senior Hearing Officer could not have concluded that the comparables were actually undervalued or that the subject property’s assessment was grossly excessive in comparison.  Without such evidence, no comparison between the median level of assessment and the actual level of assessment of the subject property could be undertaken.  The Senior Hearing Officer correctly and properly found that Complainants failed to establish discrimination.

Summary & Conclusion

A review of the record in the present appeal provides ample support for the determinations made by the Senior Hearing Officer.   There is competent and substantial evidence to establish a sufficient foundation for the Decision of the Senior Hearing Officer.  A reasonable mind could have conscientiously reached the same result based on a review of the entire record. The Commission finds no basis to support a determination that the Senior Hearing Officer acted in an erroneous, arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable manner, or that he abused his discretion as the trier of fact and concluder of law in this appeal.  See Drury, Chesterfield, Inc., v. Muehlheausler, 347 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (proper methods of valuation and assessment of property and determinations of credibility of witnesses before the administrative body are delegated to the Commission, even if evidence would support either of two opposed findings).  The Senior Hearing Officer did not err in his determinations as challenged by Complainant.

ORDER

Upon review of the record and Decision and Order in this appeal, the Commission finds no grounds upon which the Decision and Order of the Senior Hearing Officer should be reversed or modified. Accordingly, the Decision is affirmed.  The Decision and Order of the Senior 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 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 August 2, 2016.

 

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

 

Victor Callahan, Commissioner

 

 

Certificate of Service

 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid this 2nd day of August, 2016, to:

Matthew and Angelique McDonough, Complainants Acting Pro Se, 1210 Grey Fox Run, Weldon Spring, MO 63304 m.mcdonough@charter.net

Amanda Jennings, Counsel for Respondent, ajennings@sccmo.org

Scott Shipman, Assessor, St. Charles County, sshipman@sccmo.org

Steve Riney, Assessor’s Officer, SRiney@sccmo.org

 

 

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator

 

Contact Information for State Tax Commission:

Missouri State Tax Commission

P.O. Box 146

301 W. High Street, Room 840

Jefferson City, MO 65102

573-751-2414

573-751-1341 FAX

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

MATTHEW & ANGELIQUE MCDONOUGH., )
)
Complainant(s), )
)
v. ) Appeal # 15-32851
)
SCOTT SHIPMAN, ASSESSOR, )
ST. CHARLES CO., MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent )

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

The assessment made by the Board of Equalization of St. Charles County is AFFIRMED. Complainants did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the St. Charles County Board of Equalization.  Assessed value in money for the subject property for tax year 2015 is set at $112,734 residential ($593,339 TMV).

Complainant Matthew McDonough appeared pro se.

Complainant Angelique McDonough did not appear.

Respondent appeared by attorney Amanda Jennings.

Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu.

ISSUE

Complainants appealed on the sole ground of overvaluation. The St. Charles County Assessor set the TMV of the subject property, as residential property, at $539,339.  The St. Charles County Board of Equalization sustained such valuation.  The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money of the subject property on January 1, 2015.

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.  Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission.
  2. Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on February 3, 2016 at the St. Charles Administrative Building in St. Charles, Missouri.
  3. Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by identifier number T143000002 and parcel number 3-121B-A970-00-109A.  It is further identified as 1210 Grey Fox Run, St. Charles, MO.  (Exhibit 1).
  4. Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of a .49 acre tract of land improved by a single family, residential, brick, stone veneer and vinyl sided, 1-story style home.  It has 2,668 square feet of living area.  Amenities include three bedrooms, three full bathrooms, five half bathrooms, a three car attached garage, a deck, a patio and a porch.  (Ex. 1)
  5. Assessment. The Assessor set a true market value on the subject property at $593,339 residential.
  6. Board of Equalization. The Board of Equalization sustained the true market value of the property.
  7. Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant Matthew McDonough offered Exhibits A through E.  An objection was made to all exhibits as to relevance, hearsay and to the extent such related to settlement negotiations.  The objections were overruled and all exhibits were received into the record to be given such weight, if any, as deemed appropriate.
Exhibit A Summary
Exhibit B Home Sales in Neighborhood
Exhibit C 14 Comparable Properties
Exhibit D Original Home Appraisal & Related Documents
Exhibit E Properties Which Complainants Contend Are Not Comparable

 

  1. Purchase of Subject Property, Appraisal and Improvements. The subject property was purchased by Complainants in March of 2014 for $557,339. The subject property was appraised for $558,000, as of March 7, 2014.  Prior to January 1, 2015 and after the appraisal date and date of purchase, improvements, including a deck, patio and the finishing of the subject property’s basement, consisting of 1980 square feet, were completed.
  2. Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered into evidence Exhibit 1, which consisted of an Appraisal Report of Christina Aguilar, valuing the property at $600,000, as of January 1, 2015.  Such exhibit was received into the record without objection.

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, including the application of any abatement. 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.  Article X, Section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo.

Complainants’ Burden of Proof

In order to prevail, Complainants must present substantial and persuasive evidence as to the proper taxation of the subject property on January 1, 2015. Hermel, supra. There is no presumption that the taxpayer’s opinion is correct. 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).

Weight to be Given Evidence

            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 is not bound by any specific method.

Owner’s Opinion of Value

Although an owner is competent to testify regarding the appropriate valuation of the owner’s property, “[w]here 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).

Board Presumption and Computer-Assisted Presumption

            There exists a presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.  In charter counties or the City of St. Louis, there exists by statutory mandate a presumption that the Assessor’s original valuation was made by a computer, computer-assisted method or a computer program – the computer-assisted presumption.  These two presumptions operate with regard to the parties in different ways.  The Board presumption operates in every case to require the taxpayer to present evidence to rebut it.  If Respondent is seeking to prove a value different than that set by the Board, then it also would be applicable to the Respondent.  The computer-assisted presumption only comes into play if the Board of Equalization lowered the value of the Assessor and Respondent is seeking to sustain the original assessment and it has not been shown that the Assessor’s valuation was not the result of a computer assisted method.  The Board valuation is assumed to be an independent valuation.  In the present appeal, the Board of Equalization sustained the valuation of the Assessor.  Consequently, the computer-assisted presumption does not come into play in the present appeal.

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, at 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, supra; 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. Div. 2 1974).

Opinion Testimony by Experts

            An expert’s opinion must be founded upon substantial information, not mere conjecture or speculation, and there must be a rational basis for the opinion. Missouri Pipeline Co. v. Wilmes, 898 S.W. 2d 682, 687 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995).  The State Tax Commission cannot ignore a lack of support in the evidence for adjustments made by the expert witnesses in the application of a particular valuation approach. Drey v. State Tax Commission, 345 S.W. 2d 228, 234-236 (Mo. 1961), Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W. 3d, 341, 348 (Mo. 2005).

            The testimony of an expert is to be considered like any other testimony, is to be tried by the same test, and receives just so much weight and credit as the trier of fact may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances.  The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, has the authority to weigh the evidence and 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 may accept it in part or reject it in part. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W. 2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W. 2d 605, 607 (Mo. 1981); Scanlon v. Kansas City, 28 S.W. 2d 84, 95 (Mo. 1930).

Evidence of Increase in Value

            In any case in charter counties or St. Louis City 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. Section 138.060, RSMo; 12 CSR 30-3.075. The evidence presented by the Respondent was substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the fair market value of the property under appeal, as of January 1, 2015, to be $600,000.  However, under the Commission rule just cited and Supreme Court decision the true market value cannot be increased above $593,339, in this particular appeal. State ex rel. Ashby Road Partners, LLC et al v. STC and Muehlheausler, 297 S.W.3d 80, 87-88 (Mo 8/4/09).

Discussion

Complainant Matthew McDonough did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to prove the value of the subject property as of 1/1/15. He is neither a licensed appraiser nor a real estate broker.  He is not an expert in the appraisal of property.  Although he raised the possibility that certain properties in his neighborhood should have been used as comparables (Ex. B) or that other possible comparables existed (Ex. C), such only raised potential questions without providing an ultimate valuation of the subject property as of 1/1/15.

Many of Complainant Matthew McDonough’s questions pose more of a discrimination type claim. However, Complainant did not appeal on this point. Notwithstanding such fact, Complainant did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to be successful on such type claim.  To be successful, Complainant had to:  (1) prove the true value in money of their property on January 1, 2015; and (2) show an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessing officials resulting in an assessment of that property at a greater percentage of value than other property, generally, within the same class within the same taxing jurisdiction.   Koplar v. State Tax Commission, 321 S.W.2d 686, 690, 695 (Mo. 1959).  Evidence of value and assessments of a few properties does not prove discrimination.  Substantial evidence must show that all other property in the same class, generally, is actually undervalued.   State ex rel. Plantz v. State Tax Commission, 384 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo. 1964). The difference in the assessment ratio of the subject property the average assessment ratio in the subject county must be shown to be grossly excessive. Savage v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 722 S.W.2d 72, 79 (Mo. banc 1986). No other methodology is sufficient to establish discrimination. Cupples-Hesse, supra. Complainant did not prove discrimination.

Conversely, Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence to support the valuation of the Board of Equalization; although under no burden to put forth any evidence. Respondent’s appraiser utilized appropriate approaches to value the subject property.  She utilized the cost approach and the sales comparison approach.  She found the sales comparison approach to be the most reliable.  She selected six comparable sales, one of which was the sale of the subject property in March of 2014.  All of the comparables sold between February 2013 and February 2015.  The appraiser made market based adjustments to such comparables.  All of the comparables utilized by the appraiser were located in what the appraiser considered similar neighborhoods.  As to such issue, the Hearing Officer would have preferred that more properties in the subject neighborhood be utilized, with adjustment made to such properties for age, condition, etc., to the extent that such could have been done or in the alternative that the failure to utilize such properties be explained more fully within the appraisal.

Ultimately, Complainants failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the Board of Equalization presumption. This independently would result in the Board of Equalization value being affirmed.  However, Respondent additionally presented substantial and persuasive evidence to support the Board of Equalization value.  This constitutes a second independent reason to affirm the Board of Equalization value.

ORDER

The true market valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor for St. Charles County for the subject tax day and sustained by the St. Charles County Board of Equalization, is AFFIRMED.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2015 is set at $112,734 residential ($593,339 True Market Value)

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. Section 138.432, RSMo

Disputed Taxes

The Collector of St. Charles 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 8th day of March, 2016.

 

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

John J. Treu

Senior Hearing Officer

 

Delivery or Notice was made via mail, email, fax, or personally on March 8, 2016 to the following Individuals of this Order

m.mcdonough@charter.net

ajennings@sccmo.org; sshipman@sccmo.org; SRiney@sccmo.org;

 

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator