STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
|THOMAS R. FISCHER,||)|
|v.||)||Appeal No. 17-112699|
|JAKE ZIMMERMAN, ASSESSOR||)|
|ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,||)|
DECISION AND ORDER
The assessment made by the Board of Equalization of St. Louis County (BOE) is AFFIRMED. Complainant Thomas R. Fischer (Complainant) did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE and to establish the true market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2017.
Complainant appeared by counsel Robert Feldmann.
Respondent Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, (Respondent) appeared by Counsel Steven Robson.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer Amy S. Westermann (Hearing Officer).
Complainant appealed on the ground of overvaluation. Respondent initially set the true value in money (TVM) of the subject property, as residential property, at $440,500. The BOE valued the subject property at $440,500, thereby sustaining Respondent’s valuation. 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 or improvement to the property. Section 137.115.1 RSMo The State Tax Commission (STC) takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property as the property existed on January 1, 2017, under the economic conditions as they existed on January 1, 2017.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
- Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper. Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission.
- Evidentiary Hearing. The issue of overvaluation was presented at an evidentiary hearing on June 25, 2018, at the St. Louis County Government Administration Building, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri.
- Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by parcel/locator number 25L630663. It is further identified as 209 Watson Court, St. Louis County, Missouri. (Complaint; Exhibit 3)
- Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of a 14,950 square foot (.32 acres) residential lot improved by a 2,510 square foot, single-family, two-story home built in 1989. (Exhibit B; Exhibit 3) The home includes four bedrooms; two full bathrooms; one half bathroom; a 1,254 square foot basement with 400 square feet of finished area; a two-car attached garage; a patio; and one fireplace. The exterior consists of brick and frame construction. (Exhibit B; Exhibit 3) The subject property has a quality of construction rating of Q5/C+ and a condition rating of C3. (Exhibit 3) The subject property is located within the city of Webster Groves and the Webster Groves School District. (Testimony of Complainant; Testimony of the Appraiser)
- Assessment. Respondent initially valued the subject property at $440,500 residential, as of January 1, 2017.
- Board of Equalization. The BOE sustained Respondent’s valuation at $440,500.
- Complainant’s Evidence. Complainant opined that the subject property’s TVM as of January 1, 2017, was $400,000. To support his opinion of value, Complainant offered the following evidence:
|Exhibit A||Letter from counsel for Complainant dated March 7, 2018, addressed to Ms. McGrath with enclosures (Exhibits B – G)||Admitted|
|Exhibit B||Photograph of front elevation of subject property; narrative description of subject property; list of Complainant’s comparable properties||Admitted|
|Exhibit C||Comparable property located at 5341 Somerworth Lane; sold 08/03/17 for $374,900; .27 acres; 2,815 square feet four bedrooms; four bathrooms; City of Shrewsbury; Affton School District||Admitted|
|Exhibit D||Comparable property located at 519 E. Jackson; sold 09/30/2017 for $428,000; sold 12/28/2017 for $400,000; .17 acres; 2,610 square feet; four bedrooms; three bathrooms; City of Webster Groves; Webster Groves School District||Admitted|
|Exhibit E||Comparable property located at 7839 Cardinal Ridge Court; listing removed from market without sale 03/31/2017, priced at $342,000; .229 acres; 2,934 square feet; four bedrooms; three full bathrooms; one half bathroom; City of Shrewsbury; Affton School District||Admitted|
|Exhibit F||Comparable property located at 7800 Robin Meadow Court; listing removed from market without sale 01/24/2018, priced at $389,900; .26 acres; 2,475 square feet; four bedrooms; two full bathrooms; one half bathroom; City of Shrewsbury; Affton School District||Admitted|
|Exhibit G||Comparable property located at 5418 Somerworth Lane; listing removed 12/08/17, priced at $339,900; .24 acres; 2,475 square feet; four bedrooms; three bathrooms; City of Shrewsbury; Affton School District||Admitted|
|Exhibit H||Map and grid of comparable properties prepared by a real estate agent||Excluded as hearsay|
|Exhibit I||Change of Assessment Notices for subject property dated May 9, 2013; May 26, 2015; and May 8, 2017; all showing increases in appraised value of subject property; 2017 notice showing an increase in appraised value of $103,300 from 2015||Admitted|
Complainant testified that Respondent had compared properties with upscale finishes to the subject property, which resulted in an incorrect assessment. Complainant testified that the assessments of his comparable properties were more “in line” with the TVM of the subject property.
On cross examination, Complainant testified that some of his comparable properties were located in the City of Webster Groves and some were located in the City of Shrewsbury. Complainant testified that some of his comparable properties were located in the Webster Groves School District and some were located in the Affton School District. Complainant testified that the subject property is located in the City of Webster Groves and the Webster Groves School District. Complainant testified that he is not a state licensed appraiser and that he did not personally verify any of the sales of the comparable properties.
- Respondent’s Evidence. Respondent opined that the TVM of the subject property as of January 1, 2017, was $454,000, which supported the presumption that the BOE’s valuation of $440,500 was correct. Respondent offered the following evidence:
|Exhibit 1||Written Direct Testimony (WDT) of the Appraiser||Admitted|
|Exhibit 2||Qualifications of the Appraiser||Admitted|
|Exhibit 3||The appraisal report of the Appraiser||Admitted|
Complainant did not object to Respondent’s exhibits, all of which were received into the record.
The Appraiser testified that she had reviewed Complainant’s comparable properties contained in Exhibits B through G but did not use them in her appraisal report because they were outside of the City of Webster Groves and the Webster Groves School District. The Appraiser testified that she had used search parameters for comparables: located south of Interstate 44; square feet; style – two story; and in the Webster Groves School District.
On cross examination, the Appraiser acknowledged that some homes located in Shrewsbury are also in the Webster Groves School District. The Appraiser testified that she had examined all of Complainant’s comparables and that she had no expertise regarding the quality of the Webster Groves School District versus the Affton School District but that for comparing homes she had stayed within the limits of the particular city in which the subject property is located. The Appraiser testified that she specifically did not use the comparable in Complainant’s Exhibit D, which was located in the City of Webster Groves and in the Webster Groves School District, in her appraisal report because the home was dated and backed to a street and had no privacy. The Appraiser testified that all of Respondent’s comparables were graded C+, the same quality of construction as the subject property.
In her appraisal report, Exhibit 3, the Appraiser analyzed three comparable properties, all two-story homes, located in the City of Webster Groves, within the Webster Groves School District, and within .10 to 1.82 miles from the subject property. (Exhibit 3) The comparable properties sold between May 2015 and October 2016. The sale prices of the comparables ranged from $428,000 to $520,000. The adjusted sale prices of the comparables ranged from $439,000 to $463,865. (Exhibit 3)
The Appraiser placed the most weight on Comparable Nos. 1 and 3 due to their similarities to the subject property and minimal market-based adjustments. (Exhibit 3) Similar to the subject property, Comparable Nos. 1 and 3 each had four bedrooms; two full bathrooms; one half bathroom; 2,521 square feet and 2,518 square feet, respectively; and a 1,267 square foot basement and a 1,247 square foot basement, respectively. (Exhibit 3) The Appraiser made a positive adjustment to Comparable No. 1 for its proximity to traffic. The Appraiser made negative adjustments for additional finished square feet and a half bathroom in the basement and for the presence of a deck. (Exhibit 3) The Appraiser made a negative adjustment to Comparable No. 3 for its age; it was built in 2006. The Appraiser made a positive adjustment for an unfinished basement and a negative adjustment for the presence of two fireplaces. (Exhibit 3) The adjusted sale price of Comparable No. 1 was $439,000. The adjusted sale price of Comparable No. 3 was $463,500. (Exhibit 3)
- Presumption of Correct Assessment Not Rebutted – TVM Established. Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE. Respondent’s evidence was substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE and to establish the TVM of the subject property to be $454,000 as of January 1, 2017; however, the TVM of the subject property will not be increased above the BOE’s determination of value, $440,500. See Section 138.060, RSMo; 12 CSR 30-3.075.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
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.
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 property and tangible personal property are assessed at set percentages of true value in money: residential property at 19%; commercial property at 32%; and agricultural property at 12%. Section 137.115.5 RSMo (2000) as amended.
Investigation by Hearing Officer
In order to investigate appeals filed with the Commission, the Hearing Officer may inquire of the owner of the property or of any other party to the appeal regarding any matter or issue relevant to the valuation, subclassification, or assessment of the property. Section 138.430.2 RSMo (2000) as amended. The Hearing Officer’s decision regarding the assessment or valuation of the property may be based solely upon his inquiry and any evidence presented by the parties or based solely upon evidence presented by the parties. Id.
Complainant’s Burden of Proof
To obtain a reduction in assessed valuation based upon an alleged overvaluation, the Complainant must prove the true value in money of the subject property on the subject tax day. Hermel, Inc., v. State Tax Commission, 564 S.W.2d 888, 897 (Mo. banc 1978). True value in money is defined as the price that the subject property would bring when offered for sale by one willing but not obligated to sell it and bought by one willing or desirous to purchase but not compelled to do so. Rinehart v. Bateman, 363 S.W.3d 357, 365 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012); Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008); Greene County v. Hermel, Inc., 511 S.W.2d 762, 771 (Mo. 1974). True value in money is defined in terms of value in exchange and not in terms of value in use. Stephen & Stephen Properties, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 499 S.W.2d 798, 801-803 (Mo. 1973). In sum, true value in money is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date. Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897.
A presumption exists that the assessed value fixed by the BOE is correct. Rinehart, 363 S.W.3d at 367; Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348; Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895. “Substantial and persuasive controverting evidence is required to rebut the presumption, with the burden of proof resting on the taxpayer.” Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348. Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959). Persuasive evidence is evidence that has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact. Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702. 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). See also, 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).
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.” Westwood Partnership, 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. W.D. 1991).
Generally, a property owner, while not an expert, is competent to testify to the reasonable market value of his own land. Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348-49; Carmel Energy, Inc. v. Fritter, 827 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992). “However, when an owner’s opinion is based on improper elements or foundation, his opinion loses its probative value.” Carmel Energy, Inc., 827 S.W.2d 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. E.D. 1980).
Respondent’s Burden of Proof
Respondent, when advocating a value different from that determined by the original valuation or a valuation made by the BOE, must meet the same burden of proof to present substantial and persuasive evidence of the value advocated as required of the Complainant under the principles established by case law. Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895; Cupples-Hesse, 329 S.W.2d at 702; Brooks, 527 S.W.2d at 53.
In this case, Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence, the Appraiser’s report and the testimony of the Appraiser, establishing that the TVM of the subject property was $454,000 as of January 1, 2017. However, Respondent presented his evidence to support the BOE’s valuation and advocated that the BOE’s valuation of $440,500 should be affirmed.
Evidence of Increase in Value
In any case in charter counties or St. Louis City where Respondent presents evidence that indicates a valuation higher than the value finally determined by the assessor or the value determined by the BOE, 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 Respondent was substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and establish the TVM of the property under appeal, as of January 1, 2017, to be $454,000. However, the assessed value cannot be increased above $440,500 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. banc 2009).
Weight to be Given Evidence
The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule, or method in determining true value in money and 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. 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, as the trier of fact, may consider the testimony of an expert witness and give it as much weight and credit as deemed necessary when viewed in connection with all other circumstances. Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991). The Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, is not bound by the opinions of experts but may believe all or none of the expert’s testimony or accept it in part or reject it in part. Exchange Bank of Missouri v. Gerlt, 367 S.W.3d 132, 135-36 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012).
Board Presumption and Computer-Assisted Presumption
There exists a presumption of correct assessment by the BOE – the BOE presumption. 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 BOE 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 BOE, then it also would be applicable to the Respondent.
The computer-assisted presumption is applicable only if (1) the BOE lowered the value of the Assessor and Respondent is seeking to sustain the original assessment and (2) it has not been shown that the Assessor’s valuation was not the result of a computer assisted method. The BOE’s valuation is assumed to be an independent valuation.
In the present appeal, the BOE sustained the initial valuation of Respondent, and Complainant is now seeking to change the assessment; therefore, the BOE presumption applies to Complainant.
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, 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 897; 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. 1974).
“For purposes of levying property taxes, the value of real property is typically determined using one or more of three generally accepted approaches.” Snider v. Casino Aztar/Aztar Missouri Gaming Corp., 156 S.W.3d 341, 346 (Mo. banc 2005), citing St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977). “Each valuation approach is applied with reference to a specific use of the property—its highest and best use.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 346-47, citing Aspenhof Corp., 789 S.W.2d at 869. “The method used depends on several variables inherent in the highest and best use of the property in question.” Snider, 156 S.W.3d at 347. “Each method uses its own unique factors to calculate the property’s true value in money.” Id. “The ‘comparable sales approach’ uses prices paid for similar properties in arms-length transactions and adjusts those prices to account for differences between the properties. Id. at 348. “Comparable sales consist of evidence of sales reasonably related in time and distance and involve land comparable in character.” Id. (quotation omitted). “This approach is most appropriate when there is an active market for the type of property at issue such that sufficient data [is] available to make a comparative analysis.” Id.
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:
- Buyer and seller are typically motivated.
- Both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interests.
- A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.
- Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.
- Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.
- 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.
Complainant’s evidence was neither substantial nor persuasive to support an opinion as to the true market value of the subject property as of January 1, 2017. Substantial evidence is that which is relevant, adequate, and reasonably supports a conclusion. Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702. Persuasive evidence is that which causes the trier of fact to believe, more likely than not, the conclusion advocated is the correct conclusion. Id.
First, Complainant did not use any of the court approved methods of valuation to arrive at an opinion of TMV. Although Complainant presented data on comparable properties, resembling the sales comparison approach, Complainant did not analyze the comparable properties by making market-based dollar adjustments to account for the specific similarities and differences between them and the subject property. Furthermore, some of Complainant’s evidence of comparables, in particular, Exhibits E, F, and G, did not provide accurate information about the sales dates and sale prices of those comparables – the basis for making market-based dollar adjustments. Second, Complainant argued that Respondent had used “high-end” comparable properties located in more “exclusive” areas, which did not reflect the subject property’s TVM. Complainant provided no evidence to support his argument that Respondent’s comparable properties were, in fact, “high-end” or that their locations were “exclusive” while the subject property was neither. Complainant did not provide definitions or examples of “high-end” or “exclusive” properties in Webster Groves. Consequently, the fact finder would be forced to engage in speculation to conclude Complainant’s opinion of the subject property’s TVM was correct.
Respondent, though not required, presented substantial and persuasive evidence supporting the BOE’s valuation of the subject property. The Appraiser used the comparable sales method for arriving at an opinion of TVM for the subject property, which is one of the three court-approved methods for determining value for tax assessment purposes. The Appraiser’s report made market-based dollar adjustments to account for the similarities and differences between the comparables and the subject property. The Appraiser’s report established that the adjusted sale prices of three comparable properties in the same city and same school district as the subject property ranged from $439,000 to $463,865. The appraised value of the subject property fell squarely within this range. (Exhibit 3)
The TVM for the subject property as determined by the BOE is AFFIRMED. The assessed value for the subject property is $83,695 residential ($440,500 TVM), as of January 1, 2017.
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
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 July 31, 2018.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Amy S. Westermann
Senior Hearing Officer
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 31st day of July, 2018, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.
 Prior to the Evidentiary Hearing, Respondent objected to the admission of all of Complainant’s exhibits and Complainant’s live testimony on the ground that Complainant failed to comply with the Hearing Officer’s scheduling order of February 5, 2018, which required the parties to file and exchange their exhibits and evidence no later than May 18, 2018. Respondent argued that he was deprived of the opportunity to adequately prepare or to adequately respond to the exhibits and evidence with objections and rebuttal evidence. Complainant argued that he had submitted the exhibits to Nancy McGrath, Respondent’s appraiser, (the Appraiser) on or about March 7, 2018, prior to the deadline. The Appraiser confirmed that she had copies of Complainant’s exhibits in her work file and that she had reviewed them. The Hearing Officer issued an interlocutory ruling allowing the introduction and admission of Complainant’s exhibits subject to a continuing objection by Respondent and notwithstanding any specific objections Respondent might make with regard to individual exhibits and given that Complainant’s live testimony would be subject to cross examination. The Hearing Officer reserved a final ruling on Respondent’s continuing objection for the Decision and Order. After hearing the arguments of counsel for the parties and reflecting upon the evidence, the facts establish that Respondent was in possession of Complainant’s exhibits and evidence prior to the exchange deadline and Respondent was provided with an opportunity to review Complainant’s exhibits and evidence before the Evidentiary Hearing and to cross examine Complainant during the Evidentiary Hearing. Therefore, Respondent was not prejudiced by Complainant’s failure to formally exchange his exhibits and evidence as directed by the scheduling order. The continuing objection is overruled.
 According to the St. Louis County Real Estate Records Database, the comparable property in Exhibit E sold on April 12, 2017, for a sale price of $350,000.
 According to the St. Louis County Real Estate Records Database, the comparable property in Exhibit F sold on January 26, 2018, for a sale price of $347,000.
 According to the St. Louis County Real Estate Records Database, the comparable property in Exhibit G sold on December 11, 2017, for a sale price of $330,000.