Michael Dennis Haynes v. Lemmon (Stoddard)

MICHAEL DENNIS HAYNES,)

)

Complainant,)

)

v.) Appeal No.08-88000

)

JODY LEMMON, ASSESSOR,)

STODDARD COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent.)

ORDER

AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION

UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

On December 23, 2008, Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor entered his Decision and Order (Decision) setting aside the assessment by the Stoddard County Board of Equalization and setting the assessed value on the property under appeal at $440 as residential property.

Respondent timely filed his Application for Review of the Decision.Complainant filed his Response.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

and

DECISION

A review of the record in the present appeal provides support for the determinations made by the Hearing Officer.There is competent and substantial evidence to establish a sufficient foundation for the Decision of the 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 Hearing Officer acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner or abused his discretion as the trier of fact and concluder of law in this appeal.[1]

Respondent’s Basis for Appeal

Respondent asserts as his basis for seeking the overturning of the Decision the following:

Prior to this property selling at Tax Sale, the owners reported to be that they both owned the manufactured home and the land (per my questionnaire).They are married and took title to the real estate as husband and wife.

I assessed the manufactured home and land together.I feel I was right in my assessment, and I feel the hearing officer is wrong in his decision and order.

This is a difficult case because it involves an Assessor who conscientiously and correctly performed his duties in assessing the manufactured home in question, yet, due to misinformation he received and the state of the law, he cannot prevail in this appeal.The Assessor discovered the presence of the manufactured home and observed that it appeared to be physically converted to real estate.He went a step further and inquired as to the ownership of the land and the ownership of the manufactured home.The prior owners, the Fowlers, indicated identical joint ownership of both the land and the manufactured home.All physical appearances and information supplied to him at the time, led the Assessor to classify and assess the manufactured home as real property as he would be required to do under Section 700.111, RSMo.No fault can be found with the procedure followed by the Assessor.

However, the property could not have been and was not converted to real estate because of the ownership of the land and manufactured home itself differed.Mr. and Mrs. Fowler reported they both were owners of the manufactured home; they were not. Respondent was misled by inaccurate reporting by the Fowlers.While both Mr. and Mrs. Fowler owned the land upon which the manufactured home sat, only Mrs. Fowler held legal title to the manufactured home.[2]

A case addressing this conversion issue, In re Estate of Parker v. Rosa Parker, 25 S.W.3d 611 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000), is almost directly on point.The court held that when ownership of the land differed from ownership of the manufactured home (in the Parker case the husband and wife owned the manufactured home and the land was owned only by the husband), the manufactured home could not be converted to real estate pursuant to Section 700.111, RSMo.The court made this finding despite the fact that the wheels, axles and hitches had been removed, and the manufactured home was on a foundation, as in the case at hand.The State Tax Commission is bound by the judicial precedence established by Missouri’s courts, and, accordingly, affirms the decision of the hearing officer.

In so ruling, this Commission does not assert that when assessing land and manufactured home, an Assessor should investigate beyond the inquiries made by the Respondent, as to who is the actual owner of the manufactured home.It is reasonable and proper for the Assessor to rely upon the information provided by the owners as to ownership.In almost all such cases, accurate information will be received and an accurate assessment will be established.Had the information supplied by the previous owners been correct, the conversion of the manufactured home to real estate would have been perfected, Complainant would have purchased the land and the manufactured home at the tax sale, and the result of this decision would be different.

The Hearing Officer correctly determined that Complainant did not obtain legal title to the manufactured home.[3]The analysis of the existing law presented in the Decision correctly addressed the facts of this case.[4]

ORDER

The Commission upon review of the record and Decision in this appeal, finds no grounds upon which the Decision of the Hearing Officer should be reversed or modified.Accordingly, the Decision is affirmed.The Decision and Order of the hearing officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, is incorporated by reference, as if set out in full, in this final decision of the 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 Stoddard 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 February 11, 2009.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

Jennifer Tidwell, Commissioner

Charles Nordwald, Commissioner

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

Decision of the Stoddard County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is SET ASIDE.Complainant rebutted the presumption of correct assessment by the Board. True value in money for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $2,300, residential assessed value of $440.Complainant appeared pro se.Respondent appeared pro se.Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.

ISSUE

The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2008.Specifically, the issue presented is: whether a mobile home, not titled in the name of the land owner, can be assessed against the land on which the mobile home is affixed?

SUMMARY

Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the Stoddard County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.The Assessor determined an appraised value of $56,500, assessed value of $10,735, as residential property.Complainant proposed a value of $2,500, assessed value of $475.A hearing was conducted on November 19, 2008, at the Stoddard County Courthouse, Bloomfield, Missouri.

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

Complainant’s Evidence

Complainant testified in his own behalf and offered into evidence Exhibit A.Exhibit A was received into evidence.The Exhibit consisted of the following documents.

Complainant’s contention was, as purchaser of the subject real estate under a collector’s deed, he did not obtain title to or ownership of the double-wide mobile home located on the property.Complainant asserted the assessment against the property he owned as of January 1, 2008 could only be on the value of the land and that his land should not be assessed for an improvement he did not own.

Respondent’s Evidence

Respondent testified in his own behalf and offered the following Exhibits, which were received into evidence.[5]

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.                  Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the Stoddard County Board of Equalization.

2.The subject property is located at 14476 Oak Street, Gray Ridge, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 21-3-8-4-4-3.It is legally described as Walston’s First Addition, Lots 3 & 4, Block 1, or Walston’s First Addition, Lots 3 & 4.The parcel is a 100’ x 150’ lot.[6]The Assessor’ appraised value for the 2007-2008 assessment cycle for the land was $2,300.[7]

3.The subject property was legally titled as of January 1, 2007, in the names of Darren Dean Fowler and Lisa Ann Fowler, husband and wife.[8]

4.As of January 1, 2007, and January 1, 2008, a 27’ x 80’ 2000 Fleetwood double wide mobile home (home) was affixed to and situated on the subject property.[9]The running gears and tongues had been removed from the home.The home was resting on concrete block foundation piers, with concrete slab footings.The home was attached to utility services.[10]The home was titled in the name of Lisa Fowler, with a First Lien with Home Acceptance Corp.[11]The Assessor’ appraised value for the 2007-2008 assessment cycle for the mobile home was $54,200.[12]

5.Michael D. Haynes (Complainant) obtained title to the subject property (land) by Collector’s Deed, dated September 5, 2007, recorded on September 7, 2007, Book 345, Pages 545 – 546, Records of Stoddard County.The amount paid was $2,556.79.[13]Complainant did not obtain title to the double wide mobile home, owned by Lisa Fowler, located on the land.[14]

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.[15]

Presumption In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.[16]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.[17]The evidence presented was sufficient to rebut the presumption of correct assessment and establish that the value of the property as of January 1, 2008, was to be based upon the land value only.The amount paid for purchase at a tax sale does not establish the fair market value of a property.Mr. Haynes presented no evidence to establish that as of January 1, 2007, the fair market value of the land under appeal was $2,500, therefore, the presumption of correct assessment by the Board as to the land value was not rebutted.

Valuation of Complainant’s Property

The valuation of Mr. Haynes’ property presents a case of first impression to the Commission.The determination of value is purely a matter of law, as there are no disputed facts.The value of the property owned by Complainant for tax year 2008 is to either be the value placed on it by the Assessor for both the land and the mobile home, or the value must be for the land only, as determined by the Assessor.In fact, Complainant did not actually contest the true value or appraised value set by the Assessor and sustained by the Board for either the land or the mobile home.Complainant’s only argument is that he should only be assessed for the land.

Complainant was not on January 1, 2008, the owner of the Fowler mobile home.Its location on the subject property acquired in September 2007 by Mr. Haynes did not give him any ownership or possessory interest.He was neither the owner nor holder of the mobile home.Therefore, he cannot be liable for taxes on the mobile home during the tax year of 2008.[18]

The Assessor assessed the mobile home and land as residential property for the 2007 – 2008 assessment cycle.A mobile home actually used as a dwelling unit is assessed as residential real property for the purpose of taxation.[19]The assessment for the 2007 – 2008 assessment cycle of the mobile home owned by Lisa Fowler on land owned by Darren Dean Fowler and Lisa Ann Fowler was appropriate under Section 137.115.6, RSMo.However, upon the land being sold and title being transferred on the land in September 2007, the mobile home, although located on Complainant’s land, could not be assessed as Mr. Haynes’ real or personal property.

“Any amount of tax due and owing based on the assessment of a manufactured home shall be included on the personal property tax statement of the manufactured home owner unless the manufactured home has been converted to real property in compliance with section 700.111 RSMo, in which case the amount of tax due and owing on the assessment of the manufactured home as a realty improvement to the existing real estate parcel shall be included on the real property tax statement of the real estate owner.”[20]

Mobile homes are to be assessed as personal property, unless the mobile home has been converted to real property under Section 700.111, RSMo.[21]The conversion of a mobile home (personal property) to real property is accomplished by two steps (1) attaching to a permanent foundation situated on real property owned by the manufactured home owner; (emphasis added) and (2) removal or modification of the running gears and hitches.[22]When this has been accomplished the mobile home is assessed as real property on the tax statement of the real estate owner.[23]

The assessment of a mobile home as an improvement against the owner of the land on which the home has been attached by placement on piering or foundation is permitted if the mobile home owner and the land owner are the same. As of January 1, 2007, Darren and Lisa Fowler were the land owners, however Lisa Fowler was the owner of the mobile home.Therefore, the first requirement of Section 700.111 was not satisfied.The mobile home on January 1, 2007, although attached to a permanent foundation, was not situated on real property owned by the manufactured home owner.The mobile home could not be assessed as an improvement against land that the mobile home owner did not own.[24]Because that circumstance (i.e. mobile home owner and land owner were not the same) also existed as of January 1, 2008, Mr. Haynes cannot be assessed the value of the mobile home, but can only be assessed for the value of the land.As of January 1, 2008, the mobile home did not satisfy the first requirement of Section 700.111 for conversion to real property.

The valuation by the Assessor of the mobile home of $54,200 is to be subtracted from the valuation of the home and land at $56,500.This leaves the land value of $2,300 as the appraised value of Complainant’s real property for the 2008 tax year.

ORDER

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

The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2008 is set at $440.

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 grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.Said application mailed 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 appeal is based will result in summary denial. [25]

The Collector of Stoddard County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall continue to hold the disputed taxes pending a 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 December 23, 2008.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI

W. B. Tichenor

Senior Hearing Officer