State Tax Commission of Missouri
PHILIP MUEHLHEAUSLER, ASSESSOR,)
ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,)
AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION
UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
On October 30, 2008, Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor entered his Decision and Order (Decision) setting aside the assessment by the St. Louis County Board of Equalization and setting the true value in money for the property under appeal at $120,000, an assessed value of $22,800 as residential property.
Complainant timely filed his Application for Review of the Decision.Respondent timely filed his Response.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Standard Upon Review
The 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.The relative weight to be accorded any relevant factor in a particular case is for the Hearing Officer to decide.
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 he may deem it entitled to when viewed in connection with all other circumstances.The Hearing Officer 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 accept it in part or reject it in part.
The Commission will not lightly interfere with the Hearing Officer’s Decision and substitute its judgment on the credibility of witnesses and weight to be given the evidence for that of the Hearing Officer as the trier of fact.
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.
Complainant’s Points on Appeal
Complainant sets forth in six paragraphs the grounds for his appeal of the Decision.The Commission identifies the points raised as follows: (a) Drive By Appraisal; (b) Improper Procedure; (c) Leon Steinbach Offered as Expert Witness; (d) Settlement Letter of Respondent’s Counsel; (e) Procedure to Offer Testimony of Witness; and (f) Payment of 2007 Taxes Under Protest.The Commission will address each of the arguments presented.
Drive By Appraisal
Mr. Vandeven asserts that the appraisal presented on behalf of Respondent was a “drive by appraisal.”From this he challenges the appraisal report of Mr. Hackman.The accusation as to a drive by appraisal is unsupported by the record.The record does establish that the appraisal was based on an exterior viewing from the street only, due to the appraiser’s inability to gain access from the owner.Failure to gain access for an interior inspection does not constitute a drive by appraisal.More importantly, this point was not raised by the taxpayer during his opportunity for cross-examination of Mr. Hackman.
As to Complainant’s general challenges to the sufficiency of the Hackman appraisal, they are without merit.The Hearing Officer properly concluded that Respondent’s Appraiser had presented substantial and persuasive evidence, in the form of an appraisal report, to establish a value of $120,000.
Complainant also challenged the Hearing Officer’s overruling the objection to “inappropriate procedures and comparable sales” used by Mr. Hackman.Mr. Vandeven objected to Exhibit 1 on the ground of use by Mr. Hackman of sales in 2004 and one in 2007.Hearing Officer Tichenor overruled the objection and received Exhibit 1 into evidence.The Hearing Officer did not in error in his ruling.
Dates of sales for comparable properties go to the weight the trier of fact may give to an appraisal.Dates of sale are not a basis for the exclusion of an appraisal report.The sales dates in both 2004 and 2007 were at a time relevant to the assessment date of 1/1/07.It would have been error for the Hearing Officer to have sustained the objection and excluded Exhibit 1 on the ground asserted by the taxpayer.
Complainant next asserts prior to his being sworn in, questions and answers concerning Leon Steinbach testifying were omitted from the written transcript.Mr. Vandeven asserts that it was “improper procedure” on the part of the Hearing Officer to not permit Mr. Steinbach to testify.The taxpayer fails to cite any statute or case law that the Hearing Officer violated in his action regarding the offer to have Mr. Steinbach testify.
Discussions by the Hearing Officer with parties prior to his calling the hearing to order are not a part of the record.If a party wishes matters discussed prior to the hearing to be a part of the record, it is the responsibility of the party to so advise the Hearing Officer.The procedure followed by Hearing Officer Tichenor in calling the hearing to order was appropriate and did not violate the rights of a fair hearing for either party.
A review of the transcript establishes that the Hearing Officer identified Complainant’s Exhibit A.The taxpayer was then sworn in to testify.Hearing Officer Tichenor then asked Mr. Vandeven a series of foundational questions on the issue of the owner’s opinion of the fair market value of his property as of January 1, 2007.
The Hearing Officer then proceeded to address the matter of receiving Exhibits A and B into evidence.Specifically, Hearing Officer Tichenor inquired of Complainant, “You wish to have introduced into evidence in support of your opinion of value Exhibit A and Exhibit B, correct?”To which Mr. Vandeven responded, “Yes, I, do.”At that point Counsel for Respondent objected to Exhibit A and testimony by Leon Steinbach on the ground Mr. Steinbach was not a licensed appraiser.The Hearing Officer elected to take the objection under advisement and rule on it in the Decision.
Complainant provides no citation to statutes or case law to establish that the procedure followed by the Hearing Officer was not proper.The Commission finds no basis to conclude the Hearing Officer’s actions constituted “improper procedure” in handling this matter.The Taxpayer’s claim that because the Hearing Officer did not permit Mr. Steinbach to testify that he did not have all the crucial information necessary to make an impartial decision misses the point.Unless and until the Hearing Officer determined Mr. Steinbach was qualified as an expert in real estate appraisal there was no legal basis to permit his testimony.The Hearing Officer was under no obligation to hear testimony from a lay witness on the subject of the fair market value of Mr. Vandeven’s property.It was within Hearing Officer Tichenor’s discretion to decline to permit Mr. Steinbach to testify.His exercise of discretion was not in error.
Steinbach Offered as Expert Witness
Mr. Vandeven next asserts error on the part of the Hearing Officer in not recognizing Leon Steinbach as an expert witness on the issue of the fair market value of the subject property. The Hearing Officer concluded the appraisal prepared by Mr. Steinbach was to be excluded from evidence on the ground that Mr. Steinbach was not qualified as an expert in appraisal of residential real property.Hearing Officer Tichenor dealt at length with the factors of Mr. Steinbach having passed the appraisers examination, his education, his experience as a real estate broker and his other experience.The conclusion was that Mr. Steinbach was not qualified as an expert for the purpose of offering an opinion of fair market value in a proceeding before the Commission.The Commission finds the Hearing Officer’s conclusion was well founded.
The decision to admit or exclude expert testimony rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge.The determination of whether a person is qualified to testify as an expert on a given subject is within the discretion of the trial judge.The Hearing Officer sits as the trial judge in evidentiary hearings before the Commission.Hearing Officer Tichenor properly exercised his discretion in determining that Mr. Steinbach was not qualified as an expert before the Commission.In seventeen years of conducting hearings, the Hearing Officer had not been confronted with a non-certified or non-licensed individual attempting to testify as an expert in appraisal and present an appraisal report.Hearing Officer Tichenor deemed it best to take the matter under advisement and rule on it in the Decision.There was no abuse of discretion in the procedure the Hearing Office followed in handling this matter.
Settlement Letter of Respondent’s Counsel
Complainant asserted his disagreement with a settlement offer from Respondent’s Counsel prior to the evidentiary hearing.This matter is totally irrelevant to the Hearing Officer’s Decision.Offers of settlement are not admissible in proceedings before the Commission.This matter was not a part of the record before the Hearing Officer.Therefore, there is no error on the Hearing Officer’s part with regard to this.Mr. Vandeven’s disagreement with a settlement offer provides no basis for overturning the Decision.
Procedure to Offer Testimony of Witness
The next point argued by the Complainant is that the Hearing Officer did not explain the hearing procedure and tell Complainant when Mr. Steinbach could testify.As previously addressed unless and until the Hearing Officer determined the status of Mr. Steinbach as an expert witness he was not permitted to testify.It was not required that the Hearing Officer allow Mr. Steinbach to testify and then later determine he was not qualified as an expert.Had the Hearing Officer concluded, after the close of the hearing, that Mr. Steinbach was qualified as an expert, it would have then been necessary to have reopened the hearing to permit his direct testimony and cross-examination.That however is a moot issue given the finding of the Hearing Officer that Mr. Steinbach is not an expert in real estate appraisal.
Payment of 2007 Taxes Under Protest
Mr. Vandeven’s final point is to advise the Commission that in 2007 he paid his real estate taxes under protest.That fact has no bearing on the determination of fair market value.It presents nothing that warrants a reversal or modification of the Decision.
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 139.031.9, 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 January 26, 2009.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Bruce E. Davis, Chairman
Jennifer Tidwell, Commissioner
Charles Nordwald, Commissioner
DECISION AND ORDER
Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is SET ASIDE.Hearing Officer finds presumption of correct rebutted by Respondent’s evidence. True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $120,000, residential assessed value of $22,800.
Complainant appeared pro se.
Respondent appeared by Associate County Counselor, Robert Fox.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.
The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2007.
Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.The Assessor determined an appraised value of $134,200, assessed value of $25,500, as residential property.Complainant proposed a value of $100,000, assessed value of $19,000.A hearing was conducted on October 22, 2008, at theSt. LouisCountyGovernmentCenter,Clayton,Missouri.
The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.
Complainant testified in his own behalf and gave his opinion of true value in money to be $100,000.The owner’s opinion of value was based on Exhibit A.Exhibit A is a Uniform Residential Appraisal Report signed by Leon Steinbach.Complainant tendered into evidence Exhibit A and Exhibit B – profile documents of Leon Steinbach.Mr. Steinbach was present with Complainant at the evidentiary hearing.
Counsel for Respondent objected to Exhibit A on the ground that Mr. Steinbach is not established as an expert in appraisal of real property for purposes of testifying and presenting an appraisal report before the Commission.The objection was taken under advisement to be ruled on in this Decision. Objection sustained. See, Ruling on Objection to Exhibit A, infra.Exhibit A is maintained in the Commission file, but is not evidence in this case.
Respondent placed into evidence the testimony of Mr. Ross Hackman, Residential Real Estate Appraiser for St. LouisCounty.The appraiser testified as to his appraisal of the subject property.The Appraisal Report (Exhibit 1) of Mr. Hackman was received into evidence.Mr. Hackman arrived at an opinion of value for the subject property of $120,000 based upon a sales comparison approach to value.In performing his sales comparison analysis, the appraiser relied upon the sales of four properties which he deemed to be comparable to the subject property. Exhibit 2 – a compilation of multi-listing sales and listing sheets on the subject property was received into evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.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.The subject property is located at 578 Coach Light Lane, Hazelwood, Missouri.The property is identified by locator number 08L320853.The property consists of a 7,497 square foot lot improved by a split foyer, single-family structure of average quality construction.The house was built in 1963 and appears to be in average to good condition.The residence has a total of four rooms, which includes three bedrooms, one bath, and contains 896 square feet of living area, above grade.There is 611 square foot of finished area in the basement.It includes three rooms and a half bath.There is an attached one-car garage.
3.The Property sold in August 2000 for $76,000.The house sold in February, 2001 for $105,000, after rehabbing. The property was listed in 2005 for $134,000.
4.There was no evidence of new construction and improvement from January 1, 2007, to January 1, 2008.
5.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, 2007, to be $100,000, as proposed.
6.The properties relied upon by Respondent’s appraiser were comparable to the subject property for the purpose of this appraisal problem. The properties were located within less than 2/10’s of a mile of the subject.Each sale property sold at a time relevant to the tax date of January 1, 2007 (1/04, 9/04, 3/05 & 3/07).The sale properties were similar to the subject in style, quality of construction, age, condition, room, bedroom and bathroom count, living area, location, site size and other amenities of comparability.
7.The appraiser made various adjustments to the comparable properties for differences which existed between the subject and each comparable.All were appropriate to bring the comparables in line with the subject for purposes of the appraisal problem.The adjustments were consistent with generally accepted guidelines for the appraisal of property of the subject’s type.They properly accounted for the various differences between the subject and each comparable.The range of adjustments as a percentage of sale price was from -8.9% to -18.4%.
8.The adjusted sales prices for the comparables calculated to $122,500, $128,000, $110,850 and $115,000, respectively.The appraiser concluded on a $120,000 value which calculated to a value per square foot of $121.70 compared with the sales prices per square foot of above grade living area for the comparables of $ 154.95, $160.71, $141.01 and $141.14.
9.Respondent’s evidence met the standard of substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board and to establish the value of the subject, as of January 1, 2007, to be $120,000.
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.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.
Ruling on Objection to Exhibit A
Objection to the admission of Exhibit A is sustained.Exhibit A is excluded from evidence in this appeal.
The only exhibit tendered in support of Complainant’s opinion of true value in money was Exhibit A.Exhibit A is a form Uniform Residential Appraisal Report.According to page 6 of Exhibit A, Leon Steinbach signed as the Appraiser, with the notation – “not certified by State ofMissouri.”
Exhibit B purports to provide a basis to establish Leon Steinbach as an expert in appraisal of residential real estate property.Mr. Steinbach is not qualified to testify as an expert on the appraisal of real estate before the State Tax Commission of Missouri.
The sum of Mr. Steinbach’s education and experience that relates to appraisal consists of the following:
1. 67 credit hours of courses with the National Association of Independent Appraisers.
2. Passing the State ofMissouri Residential Real Estate Appraisers Exam on May 31, 2002.
Mr. Steinbach also offers his status as a Real Estate Broker and six months working for Schulte Appraisal Service.Upon examination of the documents included within Exhibit B a number of conclusions can be reached.
Residential Real Estate Appraisers Examination
By letter dated May 31, 2002, Mr. Steinbach was informed by the Executive Director of the Missouri Real Estate Appraisers Commission (MREAC) that he had successfully passed the Residential Real Estate Appraisers examination.Mr. Steinbach was advised that he had three years to obtain the required experience and obtain certification as a residential real estate appraiser.To meet the experience requirement, Mr. Steinbach was to submit an updated assignment log for the experience claimed.This was so that the MREAC would select a minimum of two appraisals for review.Mr. Steinbach was also advised “If you have not completed the experience requirements and obtained your Residential Certificate after three years your test results will become null and void.”As of the date 12/14/07 (the date appearing on Exhibit A), Mr. Steinbach’s exam had become null and void.In other words, in the eyes of the MREAC it was as if he had never taken the exam.The taking of the exam, which has now become null and void, does not qualify Mr. Steinbach to testify or to submit a document asserted to be an appraisal before the State Tax Commission.
The completion of 67 credit hours with the National Association of Independent Appraisers was apparently in preparation for taking the MREAC examination.Mr. Steinbach has not taken continuing appraisal education, since he never completed the required practical experience to become a residential real estate appraiser.The effect and import of the 67 hours of class work is negated by the fact that the 2002 examination has become null and void.The taking of the appraisal courses in preparation for taking the MREAC’s examination does not qualify Mr. Steinbach to testify or to submit a document asserted to be an appraisal before the State Tax Commission.
Real Estate Broker
Mr. Steinbach’s other alleged qualifications contained in Exhibit B consist of a Missouri Real Estate Commission Broker Certificate and a Certificate of Completion of a Real Estate Broker’s Course.The Broker’s Certification was only valid through June 30, 2008.The Certificate of Completion of the Broker’s Course was only valid through May 17, 2006.Neither the Broker’s Certification or the Completion of the Broker’s Course qualify Mr. Steinbach as an expert in the appraisal of real property for purposes of testifying before the State Tax Commission.
Six Months – Schulte Appraisal Service
The sum total of the alleged appraisal experience by Mr. Steinbach is six months of work for Schulte Appraisal Service.No information was provided as to how many independent appraisals he performed or any other details.Nor is any information provided as to the time frame in which the alleged experience was obtained.It is clear that whatever this experience consisted of, it was not sufficient for Mr. Steinbach to submit his assignment log to MREAC to meet his certification requirement to be a residential appraiser.The six months of experience does not qualify Mr. Steinbach as an expert in the appraisal of real property for purposes of testifying before the State Tax Commission.
Appraisal Functions and Use of Appraisal Software
The other experience offered by Mr. Steinbach is his appraisal functions and use of appraisal software during 18 years of real estate sales work.These activities are not shown to in any way be comparable with the performance of an appraisal as addressed by Commission Rule.These activities do not qualify Mr. Steinbach as an expert in the appraisal of real property for purposes of testifying before the State Tax Commission.
Typing in information on a standard “Appraisal Report” form used for the purpose to evaluate property for a mortgage finance transaction by an individual who does not possess the requisite education, experience, certification/licensure or exemption from certification/licensure does not constitute an appraisal for purposes of evidentiary hearings before the Commission.Mr. Steinbach is not a certified/licensed residential real estate appraiser.He is not otherwise qualified by education and experience to render an expert opinion of fair market value on the property under appeal in the evidentiary hearing before the State Tax Commission.
Objection sustained.Exhibit A is not received as evidence in this appeal.
Presumptions In Appeals
There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer, or respondent when advocating a value different than that determined by the Board, presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the assessor’s or Board’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the property.
Respondent’s evidence rebutted the presumption of correct assessment.Complainant presented no evidence to rebut the presumption of correct 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.It is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.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.
2.Both parties are well informed and well advised, and both acting in what they consider their own best interests.
3.A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market.
4.Payment is made in cash or its equivalent.
5.Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the Community at the specified date and typical for the property type in its locale.
6.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.
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.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.Respondent’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.The sales comparison approach is generally recognized to be the most reliable methodology to be utilized in the valuation of single-family residences.
Complainant’s Burden of Proof
In order to prevail, Complainant 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, 2007.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.” The taxpayer must prove the fair market value asserted.
Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.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.
The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation.The owner presented no evidence in support of his opinion of fair market value.Therefore, it was not established to be based upon a proper foundation or founded upon proper elements.The opinion developed by Mr. Steinbach as shown in Exhibit A, which is excluded from evidence was nothing more than a lay opinion of value by one who is not the owner.No probative weight can be given to an owner’s opinion of value based upon the lay opinion of another person.The owner’s opinion of value was rebutted by Respondent’s evidence.
Respondent Proves Value
Respondent, when advocating a value different from that determined by the original valuation or a valuation made by the Board of Equalization, 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.The Appraisal Report of Mr. Hackman constituted substantial and persuasive evidence to establish fair market value as of January 1, 2007, to be $120,000.
The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization forSt. LouisCountyfor the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.
The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is set at $22,800.
Complainant may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty days of the mailing of such decision.The application shall contain specific 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, MO65102-0146, 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.
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 a filing of an Application for Review, unless said taxes have been disbursed pursuant to a court order under the provisions of 139.031.8 RSMo.If no Application for Review is filed, the Collector is ordered to disburse the disputed taxes in accordance with the assessment set by this Decision and Order.
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 October 30, 2008.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OFMISSOURI
W. B. Tichenor
Senior Hearing Officer
 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).
 St. Louis County v. Boatmen’s Trust Co., 857 S.W.2d 453, 457 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993); Vincent by Vincent v. Johnson, 833 S.W.2d 859, 865 (Mo. 1992);Beardsley v. Beardsley, 819 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo. App. 1991); Curnow v. Sloan, 625 S.W.2d 605, 607 (Mo. banc 1981).
 Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Lowe v. Lombardi, 957 S.W.2d 808 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997); Forms World, Inc. v. Labor and Industrial Relations Com’n, 935 S.W.2d 680 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996); Evangelical Retirement Homes v. STC, 669 S.W.2d 548 (Mo. 1984); Pulitzer Pub. Co. v. Labor and Indus. Relations Commission, 596 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. 1980); St. Louis County v. STC, 562 S.W.2d 334 (Mo. 1978); St. Louis County v. STC, 406 S.W.2d 644 (Mo. 1966).
 Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888 (Mo. 1978); Black v. Lombardi, 970 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Holt v. Clarke, 965 S.W.2d 241 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998); Smith v. Morton, 890 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995); Phelps v. Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer Dist., 598 S.W.2d 163 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980).
 Exhibit 1, p. 2 – Respondent’s Evidence, Findings of Fact 6 – 9, Methods of Valuation, pp. 9-10, Respondent Proves Value, p. 11.
 IMR Corp. v. Hemphill, 926 S.W.2d 542, 545 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1996);Jake C. Byers, Inc. v. J.B.C. Investments, 834 S.W.2d 806, 818 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 1992).
 Bynote v. National Super Markets, Inc. 891 S.W.2d 117, 125 (Mo. 1995); State v. Poole, 216 S.W.3d 271, 275 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 2007)
 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).
 Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).
 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).
 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, Exhibit 1.
 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).
 St. Joe Minerals, supra, at529 (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).
 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).
 Rigali v. Kensington Place Homeowners’ Ass’n, 103 S.W.3d 839, 846 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Boten v. Brecklein, 452 S.W.2d 86, 95 (Sup. 1970).
 Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, (Mo. App. E.D., 2008); Carmel Energy, Inc. v. Fritter, 827 S.W.2d 780, 783 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992); State, ex rel. Missouri Hwy & Transp. Com’n v. Pracht, 801 S.W.2d 90, 94 (Mo. App. E.D. 1990); Shelby County R-4 School District v. Hermann, 392 S.W.2d 609, 613 (Sup. 1965).