William R. Pundman v. Scott Shipman, Assessor St Charles County

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

WILLIAM R. PUNDMAN,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)	Appeal Number 13-32501
	)
SCOTT SHIPMAN, ASSESSOR,	)
ST. CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

 

 

 

 

ORDER

AFFIRMING HEARING OFFICER DECISION

UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

 

An Evidentiary Hearing was held on August 13, 2014 at the St. Charles County Administration Building, St. Charles, Missouri by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.  Both parties briefed the issues after the hearing.  The subject property at issue is identified by map parcel number 3-011-9778-00-0019.  It is further identified as 6 Dorothy Ann Court, St. Charles, Missouri.  The subject property consists of a .48 acre tract of land improved by a single family, residential 1.5 story home of excellent quality, with 4,082 square feet of living area.  Amenities include four bedrooms, four and one half bathrooms, a walkout basement with 1522 square feet of finished space, a fireplace, deck, patio and porch, and a three car side entry garage.

Complainant timely filed his Application for Review of the Decision.  Respondent timely filed its Response.  Complainant subsequently filed a Response to Respondent’s Response.

Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan ultimately sustained the Board of Equalization value which was set at $598,751.  Complainant proposed a value of $539,727.  Respondent submitted an appraisal report in support of such valuation, which appraised the subject property at $660,000.  This value is $61,249 more than the value ultimately assigned by the Hearing Officer.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Standard of Review

A party subject to a Decision and Order of a Hearing Officer with the State Tax Commission may file an application requesting the case be reviewed by the Commission.  The Commission may then summarily allow or deny their request.  The Commission may affirm, modify, reverse or set aside the decision.  The Commission may take any additional evidence and conduct further hearings.  See Section 138.432. RSMo.

DECISION

Complainant’s Claims of Error

            Complainant asserts that Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan made errors in “stating the one property was an arm’s length sale for $700,000 in the Spring Mill Estates subdivision which cannot be cited as an example”.  He additionally asserts that “[a]lso the Hearing Officer assumed Pundmann’s misunderstanding of depreciation vs. market conditions”.  Complainant continues by explaining why such things were improper.

Complainants’ Burden of Proof

 

First and foremost, Complainant bore the burden of proof in this case.  Respondent was under no obligation to put forth any evidence.  Complainant was required to present an opinion of market value that in the view of the Hearing Officer was substantial and persuasive to show the market value of the subject property on January 1, 2013.  Hermel, supra.   The Complainant and not Respondent 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);

Weight to be Given Evidence

            Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan was not bound by any single formula, rule or method in determining true value in money, but was free to consider all pertinent facts and estimates and give them such weight as reasonably they may be deemed entitled.  Even in situations involving an expert witness, 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.  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).  There is no evidence that Hearing Officer Monaghan improperly weighed the evidence.

Owner’s Opinion of Value

The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value.   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).   However, 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. 1980).  Many of Complainant’s assertions and evidence, were speculative, counterintuitive and would have required the Hearing Officer to improperly rely upon conjecture.  Simply because the Hearing Office did not agree with Complainant’s assertions and submission does not evidence any impropriety in her Decision.

Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record that Complainant is a licensed appraiser in Missouri.  His “appraisal”, marked as Exhibit G does not conform with the requirements of 12 CSR 30-3.065, and thus does not qualify as an appraisal report and was entitled to no weight.  Complainant’s analogy,  in his Application for Review and Response, to vehicles and how they lose value upon being driven off the lot and his desire to apply equal reasoning to what occurs to the value of a brand new home, once it is sold, is without basis in fact or reason.  Respondent’s appraiser made condition adjustments, when appropriate, to adjust for age related condition issues.  No credible evidence that such actually occurs is in the record.  Complainant did not meet his burden of proof.

Respondent’s Appraisal

Although Respondent is under no obligation in a State Tax Commission Evidentiary Hearing to prove anything, Respondent submitted appraisal evidence.  Unlike Complainant’s “appraisal”, Hearing Officer Monaghan was entitled to give Respondent’s appraisal such weight, in her discretion, she deemed appropriate.  Such conformed with 12 CSR 30-3.065.  Furthermore, pursuant to 339.501.5 (3) RSMo:  “[a]ny employee of a local, state or federal agency who performs appraisal services within the scope of his or her employment; except that, this exemption shall not apply where any local, state or federal agency requires an employee to be registered, licensed or certified to perform appraisal services” is not required to be licensed.

Respondent’s appraisal evidenced a value which was $61,249 more than the value ultimately assigned by the Hearing Officer.  Thus, in order to prevail herein, based upon an argument of error, Complainant would have to show the Hearing Officer’s assigned value was off by more than $61,249.  Complainant has failed to do so.

ORDER

The Decision and Order of the Hearing Officer, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law therein, is AFFIRMED and incorporated by reference, as if set out in full herein verbatim, 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  St Charles, 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 this 20th day of January, 2015.

 

 

 

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

Randy B. Holman, Commissioner

Victor Callahan, Commissioner

 

 

 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 22nd day of January, 2015 to:

 

William Pundmann, 6 Dorothy Ann Ct., St. Charles, MO 63303, Complainant;

Amanda Jennings, Associate Co Counselor, 100 N. 3rd St. Room 216, St Charles, MO 63301;

Scott Shipman, St. Charles County Assessor, 201 N. Second St., Room 250, St. Charles, MO 63301;

Ruth Miller, St. Charles County Registrar, 201 N. Second St., Room 541, St. Charles, MO 63301;

Michelle D. McBride, St. Charles County Collector, 201 N. Second St., Room 134, St. Charles, MO 63301.

 

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

573-751-1341 Fax

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

WILLIAM R. PUNDMAN,	)
	)
Complainant,	)
	)
v.	)	Appeal Number 13-32501
	)
SCOTT SHIPMAN, ASSESSOR,	)
CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI,	)
	)
Respondent.	)

 

 

 

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Decision of the County Board of Equalization sustaining 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. True value in money for the subject property for tax years 2013 and 2014 is set at $598,751, residential assessed value of $113,762.

Complainant appeared pro se.

Respondent appeared by attorney Amanda Jennings.

Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.

ISSUE

Complainant appeals, on the ground of overvaluation, the decision of the St. Charles County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property. 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. Charles County Board of Equalization.
2. Evidentiary Hearing. The Evidentiary Hearing was held on August 13, 2014 at the St. Charles County Administration Building, St. Charles, Missouri. Parties briefed the issues after the hearing with the last brief filed by the Complainant on September 22, 2014.
3. Identification of Subject Property. The subject property is identified by map parcel number 3-011-9778-00-0019. It is further identified as 6 Dorothy Ann Court, St. Charles, Missouri.
4. Description of Subject Property. The subject property consists of a .48 acre tract of land improved by a single family, residential 1.5 story home of excellent quality, with 4,082 square feet of living area. Amenities include four bedrooms, four and one half bathrooms, a walkout basement with 1522 square feet of finished space, a fireplace, deck, patio and porch, and and a three car side entry garage.
5. Assessment. The Assessor appraised the property at $ 598,751, an assessed residential value of $113,762. The Board of Equalization sustained the assessment.
6. Complainant’s Evidence.
7. The following Exhibits were admitted into evidence:

Exhibit	Description
A	Mr. Pundmann’s Credentials – Respondent objected as to relevance;
B	Video of Destruction of Property by Geese – Respondent objected as to relevance.
C	Photographs of the Geese and their droppings – Respondent objected as to relevance
G	Complainants Opinion of Value using Sales Comparison – Respondent objected on the basis of lack of foundation
H	Builder’s Price Out – Respondent objected as to relevance
I	Assessor’s Record on Subject property and other property – Exhibit admitted as to subject property and properties used in Respondent’s Sales Comparison approach.
O	Photographs of the rear view of Sales Comp #1 and Subject – remaining exhibit not admitted

 

1. The following Exhibits were not admitted into evidence:

Exhibit	Description
D	Article on Controlling Conflicts with Urban Canada Geese in Missouri – Objection as Hearsay was sustained
E	Article on Appraisal Methodologies – Objection as to Hearsay was sustained
F	Listing of Properties used by Assessor at BOE – Objection as to Relevance was sustained
J	Email correspondence between the Assessor and Complainant – Objection as to relevance, settlement discussions, hearsay sustained
K	Article Quoting the Assessor – Objection as to hearsay sustained
L	Information on Tornadoes – Objection as to relevance sustained
M	Excerpt from the County’s Appraisal – Not Offered
N	Listing of comparables, original sale price and later sale price – Not admitted into evidence but considered as Complainant’s closing argument
Q	Remodeling Cost v Value article – Objection as to hearsay sustained

 

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. The Respondent submitted the Appraisal Report of Erik R. Hart. The Exhibit was received into evidence without objection. The report set forth an opinion of value of $660,000. Four comparable properties were used in a sales comparison approach. The properties were sold during a period between May 2011 and January 2013. The properties were located in the subject property’s subdivision within .07 and .14 miles of the subject. The properties were within 500 square feet of the subject and were comparable in the quality, type (1.5 – 2 story homes) and other characteristics.
9. 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 $598,751, as proposed. See, Presumption In Appeal, infra.

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, 2013.

Owner’s Opinion of Value

The owner of property is generally held competent to testify to its reasonable market value. 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).   The owner’s opinion is without probative value however, where it is shown to have been based upon improper elements or an improper foundation. Cohen v. Bushmeyer, 251 S.W.3d 345, (Mo. App. E.D., March 25, 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).

“Where the basis for a test as to the reliability of the testimony is not supported by a statement of facts on which it is based, or the basis of fact does not appear to be sufficient, the testimony should be rejected.” Carmel Energy 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. 1980).

 

Complainant’s case centered on (1) comparable sales; (2) comparing multiple sales of properties; (3) damage by geese; (4) threat of tornadoes; and (5) history of discussions with the Assessor’s Office.

The Complainant attempted a sales comparison approach to value to conclude a value of $539,727 for his property. (Exhibit G)   The Complainant found the properties, sales prices, date of sales, year built, bed and bath count, and basement area from the County’s records. He estimated the distance from his property by driving to the properties. His adjustment for view ($5,000) was based upon the original lot prices prior to building. His adjustments for bath, square footage, etc. are based upon figures he stated he saw in appraisal reports he viewed. His adjustments for bow windows and breakfast room are based upon builders list of additional amenities buyers may purchase. The Complainant’s basis for adjustments has no foundation of information from the market.

The Complainant advocated for a “depreciation” based upon his review of sales history of properties. The Complainant compared prior sales of the comparables to their most recent sale and argued that it established “depreciation”. The Complainant has a misunderstanding of depreciation and market conditions. The prior sales the Complainant was referencing occurred in 2005 to 2007. The sale prices used in the sales comparison approach by the Respondent and Complainant were the most recent sales – occurring in 2011 to 2013. The data indicates a fluctuation in the market. For example, one property sold in 2007 for $650,542, in 2008 for $700,000, in 2009 for $640,000, and then in 2013 for $555,000. The difference in the sale prices do not reflect depreciation of the comparable properties but reflect the market for those type of properties.

The Complainant’s property has a water view – with the water view comes Canadian geese. The Complainant testified to the damage they have done to his grass and the waste they leave behind. The Complainant also testified that his property has a walk out basement and that he would prefer a non-walk out so the basement could act as a tornado shelter. The deficit in Complainant’s case is that there was no evidence as to the market impact. The market seems to pay more for water views – reviewing Complainant’s evidence that his lot was more expensive and the Respondent’s adjustments for non-water view – and walk out basements. (Again, the Respondent’s paired sales analysis indicated that the market preferred walk out basements.)

The Complainant’s evidence failed to meet the burden of establishing error on the part of the Board of Equalization or establish the true value of the property as of January 1, 2013.

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.

 

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. 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.

Hearsay and Relevance

            In evidentiary law there are two important and fundamental concepts relating to the admissibility of evidence, whether in testimonial or documentary form. Those two principles are hearsay and relevance. Either can be sufficient in various circumstances to exclude testimony or documents from coming into the evidentiary record.

Hearsay

            Black’s Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition (1999), p. 726, defines hearsay as follows: “Traditionally, testimony that is given by a witness who relates not what he or she knows personally, but what others have said, and that is therefore dependent upon the credibility of someone other than the witness. Such testimony is generally inadmissible under the rules of evidence.” McCormick on Evidence, Third Edition, (1984), p. 729, defines the term as; “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” The Courtroom Handbook on Missouri Evidence Missouri Practice, William A. Schroeder – 2012, Principle 800.c, p. 504,

follows the definition given by the Federal Rules and cited by McCormick. The out of court statement can take the form of either oral or written assertions. Therefore, documents which make assertions of facts are hearsay, just as well, as the speech of another person.

The hearsay rule provides that “no assertion offered as testimony can be received unless it is or has been open to test by cross-examination or an opportunity for cross-examination, except as otherwise provide by the rules of evidence, by court rules or by statute.” Black’s, supra – hearsay rule, p. 726. The rationale behind the rule is quite simply that out of court hearsay statements are not made under oath and cannot be subject to cross-examination. Accordingly, when various documents, such as but not limited to, Internet, newspaper and magazine articles are offered as exhibits in a hearing before the Commission, unless the document falls within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, upon objection such must be excluded.

Relevance

            The principle of relevance is the second critical evidentiary factor that must be considered when testimony and documents are tendered for admission into an evidentiary record. For facts, information or opinions to be relevant they must be connected in a logical manner and tend to prove or disprove a matter that is at issue in the proceeding. Black’s, supra – relevant, p. 1293.   McCormick explains that “There are two components to relevant evidence: materiality and probative value. Materiality looks to the relation between the propositions for which the evidence is offered and the issues of the case. If the evidence is offered to help prove a proposition which is not a matter in issue, the evidence is immaterial. . . . The second aspect of relevance is probative value, the tendency of evidence to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove.” McCormick, supra – p. 541. Evidence, that tends to prove or disprove a fact that is at issue or of consequence, is relevant. Missouri Practice, supra – p. 95.

In appeals on the value of property, the issue is what a willing buyer and seller would have agreed to as the purchase price on the applicable valuation date. The issue is not what real estate price trends in general may have been or any given period of time. The issue is specific to the property that is under appeal. Therefore, general statements, claims, conclusions and opinions as to what the “market for homes” has or hasn’t done do not meet the factors of materiality and probative value and are accordingly irrelevant. The fact that some report provides general information on home values addresses a matter not at issue. Such information is not material. Furthermore, such general data does not tend to prove what the property under appeal was worth on the given valuation date. For example, a report that home prices in the nation, region or certain metropolitan area over a four or five year period decreased by a certain average percentage provides no factual information as to the price or value of any given home. In other words, such information is not probative on the issue of value. It does nothing to prove that a given property is worth one amount or another.

Weight to be Given Evidence

            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. 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 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. 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).

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, at 615 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000); Hermel, supra; 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. Div. 2 1974).

 

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for St. Charles County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2013 and 2014 is set at $113,762.

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. Charles 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 9^th day of October, 2014.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

Maureen Monaghan

Hearing Officer

 

 

Certificate of Service

 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 9^th day of October, 2014 to:

William Pundmann, 6 Dorothy Ann Ct., St. Charles, MO 63303, Complainant;

Amanda Jennings, Associate Co Counselor, 100 N. 3rd St. Room 216, St Charles, MO 63301;

Scott Shipman, St. Charles County Assessor, 201 N. Second St., Room 250, St. Charles, MO 63301;

Ruth Miller, St. Charles County Registrar, 201 N. Second St., Room 541, St. Charles, MO 63301;

Michelle D. McBride, St. Charles County Collector, 201 N. Second St., Room 134, St. Charles, MO 63301.

 

Jacklyn Wood

Legal Coordinator