Michelle Sleet v. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor St Louis County

September 5th, 2014

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

MICHELLE SLEET, )  
  )  
Complainant, )  
  )  
) Appeal Number 13-13166
  )  
JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR, )  
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, )  
  )  
)  

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Decision of the County Board of Equalization affirming the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED. Complainant did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization. Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence to support the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.

True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2013 and 2014 is set at $488,400, residential assessed value of $92,790.

Complainant appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared by attorney Paula Lemerman

Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer John Treu.


ISSUE

Complainant appeals, on the ground of discrimination, the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property. However, it is clear, based upon the exhibits offered and the testimony given by Complainant, that the issue in this case was overvaluation. The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2013. The value as of January 1 of the odd numbered year remains the value as of January 1 of the following even numbered year unless there is new construction and improvement to the property. Section 137.115.1 RSMo

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.
  2. Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on August 20, 2014 at the St. Louis County Administration Building, Clayton, Missouri.
  3. Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by map parcel number or locator number 17R210372. It is further identified as 412 Argus Manor Court, Chesterfield, St. Louis County, Missouri.(Ex. 1)
  4. Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of a 21,210 +/- square foot tract of land improved by a single family, residential two story style home with a quality meeting or exceeding applicable building codes, with 3,976 square feet of living area. Amenities include four bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms, a deck, two fireplaces, approximately 1300 square feet of finished basement, and a three car attached garage. (Ex. 1)
  5. Assessment. The Assessor appraised the property at $488,400. The Board of Equalization sustained the appraisal of the property at $488,400. (Ex. 1)
  6. Complainant’s Evidence.   Complainant offered into evidence Exhibit A through Exhibit F. Exhibit A consisted of a Roof Replacement Bid. Exhibit B consisted of an email regarding the roof. Exhibit C consisted of a Concrete Bid to replace the driveway. Exhibit D consisted of purported comparables. Exhibit E consisted of an email to the State Tax Commission. Exhibit F consisted of photos of the subject property and road. Exhibits A through E were objected to, objection overruled and the exhibits were received into the evidentiary record. Exhibit F was received into evidence without objection. Complainant testified about a leaky roof, warped floors and leaking doors. However, Complainant presented not credible evidence of the cost to repair such. In fact, Complainant’s bid for replacement of the entire roof appeared misplaced as the testimony showed the roof was only leaking in a relatively limited area above the garage. Complainant’s testimony about the driveway deficiencies seemed overstated. Complainant did not present convincing evidence the entire driveway needed to be replaced.
  7. No Evidence of New Construction & Improvement. There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2013, to January 1, 2014, therefore the assessed value for 2013 remains the assessed value for 2014. Section 137.115.1, RSMo.
  8. Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent offered into evidence Exhibit 1 – Appraisal Report dated 5/13/2014 with an Effective Date of 1/1/2013 – Gerald Keeven, Jr., Missouri State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser, reaching an appraised value of $506,000 ($17,600 above the Assessor and Board of Equalization value). Respondent also offered Exhibit 2, which consisted of a 2007 MARIS listing of the subject property   Exhibit 1 was received into evidence without objection. Exhibit 2 was objected to, objection was overruled and the exhibit was received into the evidentiary record.

Respondent’s appraiser used six comparable properties to arrive at a value for the subject property. The sales comparables were between .02 and .38 miles of the subject property. The sales dates of the comparables fell between February 2012 and December 2012. The sales prices of the comparables fell between $500,000 and $550,000, with the adjusted sales prices for such falling between $475,700 and $523,800. The gross adjustments to the comparables fell between 7.9% and 13.7%. The condition of the subject property and all of the comparables was determined to be the same. A downward adjustment of $25,000 was made to comparables #1, #2, #4 and #5 as they were deemed to be of higher quality as compared to the subject property. (Ex. 1)

The testimony of the Respondent’s appraiser seemed equivocal at times on at least one issue, if not more. Regarding the condition of the roof, he testified that he was not a building inspector. When asked about whether he saw any evidence of damage to the roof, he seemed uncomfortable to pose a clear opinion, as it would seem a Missouri State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser should be able to do. Such would seem to go directly to the overall condition of the subject property, including, but not limited to, the condition of exterior walls, concrete or pavement, soffits and in this case the condition of the roof and as such the opinion of value.

Notwithstanding this concern, Complainant had the ultimate burden of proof in this case as to any necessary and cost of any repairs. The fact that Respondent’s appraiser came to a value $17,600 above the value being affirmed this date also is pertinent.

  1. Presumption of Correct Assessment Not Rebutted. Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the true value in money as of January 1, 2013, to be $422,000 to $433,000, as proposed. Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence to support the valuation of the Board of Equalization and not for the purpose of raising the assessment above that value.

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

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. Article X, Sections 4(a) and 4(b), Mo. Const. of 1945. The constitutional mandate is to find the true value in money for the property under appeal. By statute real and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money. Section 137.115.5, RSMo – residential property at 19% of true value in money; commercial property at 32% of true value in money and agricultural property at 12% of true value in money.

Presumption