Source: https://stc.mo.gov/legal/brant-smith-v-jake-zimmerman-assessor-st-louis-county/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:24:40+00:00

Document:
The decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization (BOE) is SET ASIDE. Complainant Brant W. Smith (Complainant) did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE. Respondent Jake Zimmerman, Assessor, St. Louis County, Missouri, (Respondent) presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE.
Respondent appeared by counsel Steve Robson.
Complainant appealed on the ground of overvaluation. Respondent initially set the true value in money (TVM) of the subject property at $259,100, as residential property, as of January 1, 2017. The BOE valued the subject property at $239,300, thereby lowering Respondent’s valuation. The State Tax Commission (STC) takes this appeal to determine the TMV for the subject property as of January 1, 2017.
Evidentiary Hearing. The issue of overvaluation was presented at an evidentiary hearing on May 7, 2018, at the St. Louis County Government Building, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, Missouri.
Assessment. Respondent set a TVM for the subject property of $259,100, residential, as of January 1, 2017.
Board of Equalization. The BOE set a TVM of the subject property at $239,300, residential, as of January 1, 2017.
Respondent did not object to Complainant’s exhibits, all of which were admitted into the record.
Complainant testified that he had purchased the subject property in 2006 for approximately $285,000. Complainant testified that the subject property had been purchased through a realtor working on behalf of Complainant and that it had been publicly advertised. Complainant testified that the subject property was encumbered by a mortgage of between $235,000 and $240,000. Complainant testified that he had not listed it for sale within the three years preceding the evidentiary hearing and, if he were to list the subject property for sale, he would list it for approximately $230,000. Complainant testified that no offers had been made to purchase the subject property and that the property had not been appraised in the three years preceding the evidentiary hearing. Complainant testified that he had not made any improvements to the subject property between January 1, 2015, and January 1, 2017.
On cross examination, in response to questioning regarding Exhibit B, Complainant testified that he had “no idea” of the meaning of the sale validity codes related to the highlighted sales. Complainant testified the he did not know the identity of the buyers and sellers related to the highlighted sales.
Complainant did not object to Respondent’s exhibit, which was admitted into the record.
Respondent also presented the testimony of the Appraiser. The Appraiser testified that she had used the comparative sales approach to arrive at an opinion that the subject property’s TVM was $233,000 as of January 1, 2017. On cross examination, the Appraiser testified that four of the five comparable were not on the first floor of their buildings. The Appraiser testified that Comparable Nos. 1 and 3 were third floor units in the same building as the subject property and that Comparable No. 4 was a fourth floor unit in the same building as the subject property. The Appraiser testified that she did not see any market evidence to suggest making an adjustment to the sale prices of the comparables due to the floor on which they were located. The Appraiser further testified that Comparable No. 2 was located in a building only one block from the subject property. In response to cross examination regarding a property shown on Complainant’s Exhibit B, 6415 Cates Avenue, the Appraiser testified that she did not know anything about the back-to-back sales of that property. According to Exhibit B, the sales occurred only days apart, on November 1, 2016, and November 17, 2016. The Appraiser further testified that she had conducted her search for comparable sales by looking at comparables ranging from 400 square feet less than to 400 square feet more than the subject property and that 6415 Cates Avenue must have fallen outside those parameters. On re-direct, the Appraiser testified that the sale validity codes shown on Exhibit B with regard to 6415 Cates Avenue indicated that one of the sales was not an open market sale and could have been a foreclosure.
Presumption of Correct Assessment Rebutted – TVM Established. Complainant did not present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE. Respondent presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the BOE and establishing that the TVM of the subject property was $233,000, as of January 1, 2017.
The STC 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 BOE, 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.
In order to investigate appeals filed with the STC, 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.
There exists a presumption of correct assessment by the BOE – the BOE presumption. There also 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 substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut it. If Respondent is seeking to prove a value different than that set by the BOE, then Respondent is required to rebut the BOE presumption.
The computer-assisted presumption only comes into play if the BOE lowered the value of the assessor and Respondent is seeking to sustain the original assessment and it has not been shown that the assessor’s valuation was not the result of a computer-assisted method. The BOE valuation is assumed to be an independent valuation.
In the present appeal, the BOE determined the TVM of the subject property to be $239,300, thereby lowering the initial valuation of Respondent, which was a result of a computer-assisted method of valuation. Both Complainant and Respondent are now seeking to lower the BOE’s valuation; therefore, the BOE presumption applies to Complainant and to Respondent. The computer-assisted presumption is not applicable in this case.
There is a presumption of validity, good faith, and correctness of assessment by the BOE. 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). This presumption is a rebuttable rather than a conclusive presumption. It places the burden of going forward with some substantial evidence on the taxpayer – the complainant. When some substantial evidence is produced by the complainant, “however slight,” the presumption disappears, and the Hearing Officer, as trier of facts, receives the issue free of the presumption. United Missouri Bank of Kansas City v. March, 650 S.W.2d 678, 680-81 (Mo. App. 1983), citing to State ex rel. Christian v. Lawry, 405 S.W.2d 729, 730 (Mo. App. 1966) (and cases therein cited). The presumption is not evidence of value. The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the BOE’s valuation is erroneous and the TVM that 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).
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 STC “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).
In this case, Respondent presented the Appraiser’s report, Exhibit 1, and the Appraiser’s testimony to support his opinion that the subject property’s TVM was $233,000, as of January 1, 2017.
“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.
In this case, Complainant’s evidence was not substantial and persuasive to rebut the presumption that the BOE’s determination of the TVM of the subject property was correct. Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702. 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.
Complainant did not present evidence using one or more of the three court-approved approaches to valuing property to support his opinion that the TVM of the subject property was $200,000 as of January 1, 2017. Notably, with regard to Exhibit B, one would be forced to speculate in deciding which of the highlighted sales involved properties were comparable to the subject property. The sale prices ranged widely from only $600 to $1,434,319. No market based adjustments were made to the highlighted sales for their similarities and differences with the subject property. Moreover, Complainant testified that he did not know the meaning of the sale validity codes for the highlighted sales and did not know the identity of the buyers and sellers. Based upon a review of the sale validity codes and their meanings, which are posted on Respondent’s online Real Estate Database, one can reasonably conclude that some of the highlighted sales were not valid sales but involved foreclosures or other non-market transactions.
Respondent, however, presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption that the BOE’s determination of the TVM of the subject property was correct. The Appraiser’s report and the Appraiser’s testimony established that the Appraiser reviewed the sales or pending sales of five comparable properties to determine that the BOE’s valuation should be reduced by 2.6%. The adjusted sale prices of Comparable Nos. 1 and 4 were particularly persuasive given that those properties were located within the same building as the subject property and had features identical to those of the subject property. From this evidence, one can reasonably conclude that the TVM of the subject property was $233,000 as of January 1, 2017.
The TVM for the subject property as determined by the BOE is SET ASIDE. The assessed value for the subject property for tax year 2017 is set at $44,270 residential ($233,000 TVM).
SO ORDERED July 3rd, 2018.
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 3rd day of July, 2018, to: Complainants(s) counsel and/or Complainant, the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.
 Q5 rating is described as dwellings with economy of construction and basic functionality.
 C3 condition means that the improvements are well maintained and feature limited depreciation due to normal wear and tear.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.