Opinion ID: 1829637
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 1999 Property Sale

Text: First, the county argues that the tax court should have given more weight to the rejected June 1999 $6 million cash offer and the December 1999 $6.2 million sale price as material evidence of the 1996 and 1997 valuations under the market comparison approach. The weight to be given particular evidence in a valuation determination is for the trier of fact. See Alstores Realty, Inc. v. State, 286 Minn. 343, 353, 176 N.W.2d 112, 118 (1970). The tax court stated that it consistently gives no weight to nonconsummated purchase agreements. Niemi v. County of Carver, Nos. C3-96-146 and C5-96-147, 1996 WL 685573, at  (Minn. T.C., Nov. 25, 1996). Such agreements are essentially offers to purchase, and represent one potential buyer's valuation of the property. The offer may be laden with contingencies or terms other than sale price that distort the monetary value of the offer. While under different facts we might rule otherwise, we do not consider the tax court's decision not to give weight to the nonconsummated purchase agreement in this case to be an abuse of discretion. Therefore, we consider only whether the $6.2 million sale price was given proper weight in determining the property's value in 1996 and 1997. Respondent's appraiser testified that because the sale occurred four and three years after the relevant assessment dates, it was too remote in time to be considered, although he did use a 1999 land sale as one of four comparables in appraising the value of respondent's land for 1996 and 1997. Respondent's appraiser also testified that the market had not changed between 1996 and April 1998 and that this sale marked an unanticipated change in the luxury home market on Lake Minnetonka. The county argues that, assuming no change in the market until April 1998, the record contains no evidence to support a 70 percent increase in the value for luxury homes on Lake Minnetonka between April 1998 and December 1999. The tax court noted that one sale is not necessarily conclusive of value because one sale does not make a market. The tax court explained that it was persuaded by the testimony of respondent's appraiser that the December 1999 sale represented an unanticipated market change, and the tax court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses. F-D Oil Co. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 560 N.W.2d 701, 706 (Minn.1997). The tax court also explained that it generally gives little weight to sales remote in time to the valuation date. See Huisken Meat Center, Inc. v. County of Murray, Nos. C2-97-27 and C8-95-271, 1998 WL 15131, at  (Minn. T .C., Jan. 14, 1998). Likewise, we have considered the market comparison approach to be based on recent sales of similar property. See, e.g., Northerly Centre Corp. v. County of Ramsey, 311 Minn. 335, 338, 248 N.W.2d 923, 925, n. 2 (1976). We cannot say that the tax court clearly erred or completely failed to explain its reasoning when it determined under these particular facts that the December 1999 sale was too remote in time to be given much weight in determining the property's value in January 1996 and 1997. See Marquette Bank, 589 N.W.2d at 305.