Owen Ridge Associates LLC v. Jake Zimmerman, Assessor St Louis County

April 27th, 2015

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

OWEN RIDGE ASSOCIATES LLC, )
)
Complainant, )
)
V ) Appeal Number 09-13063
)
JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR, )
ST LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Respondent. )

 

 

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Decision of the County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is SET ASIDE.  Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.

True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $3,400,000, commercial assessed value of $1,088,000.

Complainant appeared by Counsel Thomas Caradonna

Respondent appeared by Associate County Counselor Ed Corrigan

Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.

ISSUE

Complainant appeals, on the grounds of overvaluation and discrimination, the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.  The ground of discrimination has been abandoned. Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2009.  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. Exchange and Hearing order was issued by the State Tax Commission.  Parties were ordered to file their exhibits by February 2, 2015, Objections by March 2, 2015, Responses and Surrebuttal by April 2, 2015 and the parties were to request a hearing by April 15, 2015 or the appeal would be submitted upon the exhibits received.  No party requested a hearing on this appeal and therefore the appeal was submitted on exhibits.
  3. Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by map parcel number 21K220342 in 2009 and as 21K220425 in 2010.  It is further identified as 345 Marshall Ave, St. Louis, Missouri.
  4. Description of Subject Property. The subject property in 2009 consisted of a 5.65 acre tract of land in 2010 it consisted of 10.04 acres.  The property consists of Building 345 a three story building with 38,613 square feet of net rentable area; Building 349 a three story building with 42,645 square feet of net rentable area; Building 353 a two story building with 8,994 square feet of net rentable area and a mechanical room; Building 357 a two story building with 11,320 square feet of net rentable area, and in 2010 building 359 a warehouse and conference center.  The property is a multi-tenant office property.  It was originally designed for a single owner manufacturer.  The entrance area and the parking lot suffer from flooding.  There is environmental contamination in the area.
  5. Sale of Subject. The subject property was purchased by Complainant in 2000 for $1,682,000.
  6. Assessment. The Assessor appraised the property at $5,947,600, an assessed commercial value of $1,903,230.  The Board of Equalization sustained the assessment.
  7. Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant submitted Exhibits A1, A2, B1 and B2.  Exhibits As are appraisal reports by Certified General Appraiser Albert Westover.  Exhibit Bs are Mr. Westover’s written direct testimony.  The exhibits were received into evidence without objection.
  8. No Evidence of New Construction & Improvement. 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.  Section 137.115.1, RSMo.
  9. Respondent’s Evidence. The Respondent submitted Exhibit 1 – the Board of Equalization decision.  The Exhibit was received into evidence without objection.
  10. Presumption of Correct Assessment Rebutted – Value Established. The evidence presented by Complainant was substantial and persuasive to both rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and to establish the fair market value of the subject property to be $3,400,000, assessed commercial value of $ 1,088,000

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 In Appeal

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.  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).

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

Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See, Cupples-Hesse, supra.   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.   Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975).

Complainants’ Burden of Proof

 

In order to prevail, Complainants must present an opinion of market value and substantial and persuasive evidence that the proposed value is indicative of the market value of the subject property on January 1, 2009.  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).  A valuation which does not reflect the fair market value (true value in money) of the property under appeal is an unlawful, unfair and improper assessment.

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.  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)  True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not value in use.  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).  It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, supra. 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.

 

  1. Both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interests.

 

  1. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.

 

  1. Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.

 

  1. Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.

 

  1. 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.  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.

 

set percentages of true value in money. Section 137.115.5, RSMo

Issuance of Decision Absent Evidentiary Hearing

            The Hearing Officer, after affording the parties reasonable opportunity for fair hearing, shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination of the board of equalization, correcting any assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary or capricious.  Section 138.431.5 RSMo; 12 CSR 30-3.080 (2). The filing of exhibits and written direct testimony establishes the basis upon which opportunity for an evidentiary hearing can be held.  The Complainant has the burden to present substantial and persuasive evidence.  The Respondent did not file any objections or rebuttal exhibits.  Therefore, the Hearing Officer simply considered the exhibits filed and then proceeded to ascertain if said exhibist met the standard of substantial and persuasive evidence to establish the market value of the property.

 Complainant Proves Value

Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to establish a fair market value as of January 1, 2009, to be $3,400,000 for the subject property.  Complainant’s appraiser developed an opinion of value relying upon an established and recognized approach for the valuation of real property, the sales comparison or market approach and the income approach.  The appraiser relied most heavily on the income approach.  In Exhibit A1 the appraiser reached indications of value of $3,372,000 under the income approach and $3,535,000 under the sales approach.  The appraiser concluded on a value of $3,400,000.  In Exhibit A2, which included the additional building, the appraiser reached indications of value of $3,343,000 under the income approach and $3,535,000 under the sales approach.  The range of values reached by the appraiser allows the property to remain valued at $3,400,000 for 2010.

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 $1,088,000.

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. 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.

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 this 27th day of April, 2015.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

Maureen Monaghan

Hearing Officer

 

Certificate of Service

 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid on this 27th day of April, to: the county Assessor, county Collector and the following:

 

tcaradonna@lewisrice.com

stc-correspondence@stlouisco.com

 

 

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator

 

Contact Information for State Tax Commission:

Missouri State Tax Commission

301 W. High Street, Room 840

P.O. Box 146

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146

573-751-2414