Opinion ID: 6107769
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: For sentence classification purposes, what is the proper valuation method for theft of real property?

Text: Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-105 (2014 & 2017 Supp.) establishes penalties for theft based on the value of the property or services obtained. Property value for purposes of this statute means the fair market value of the property ... at the time and place of the offense. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106 (a)(36)(A)(i). Alternatively, [i]f the fair market value of the property cannot be ascertained, then replacement cost is the measure of value. Id. § 39-11-106(a)(36)(A)(ii) ; see also  State v. Smith , M2014-01969-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 6082625 , at  (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 16, 2015) (explaining that the cost of repairs is the appropriate means for determining replacement costs in cases of vandalism). If either of those methods fails to yield an ascertainable valuation, the property is deemed to have a value of less than fifty dollars. Id. § 39-11-106(a)(36)(C). 20 Here, the State offered ample evidence to establish the fair market value of the East Memphis house, and the jury convicted Defendant of theft over $250,000, a Class A felony with a sentencing range of fifteen to twenty five years. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-35-112 (a)(1) (2014 & 2017 Supp.). Defendant argues that the appropriate valuation for purposes of grading her offense is the rental value of the East Memphis house for the time that she actually occupied the house. We recognize that, given the high fair market value of real estate, persons convicted of theft of real property will potentially be subject to longer sentences. But no language in either Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-14-105, grading the severity of theft offenses, or in section 39-11-106(a)(36), explaining how to value property, authorizes courts to use the rental value of the duration of a theft to determine the value of the property that was taken. Cases where rental value has been used in determining the value of the property in theft convictions in other states are distinguishable. In those cases, a defendant either entered into a lease agreement with no intent to pay the landlord, see, e.g. , People v. Bell , 197 Cal.App.4th 822 , 128 Cal.Rptr.3d 588 , 592 (2011) ; People v. Hagan , C072508, 2013 WL 4851250 , at  (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 11, 2013), or a defendant unlawfully collected rent on properties, see, e.g. , Kosch , 133 A.3d at 678 (defendant used fraudulent documents to represent to third-parties that he had a right to rent the properties but never filed the documents or otherwise acted to transfer title to the properties); State v. Burrell , 2011-Ohio-5655 , at ¶ 6 (defendant believed he could do whatever he pleased with a house, including renting it to third-parties while it was the subject of a foreclosure action). In these cases, the evidence supported the conclusion that the defendants intended to deprive the rightful owners of the properties of rental proceeds or value, but not that the defendants intended to take exclusive ownership or title to the properties. Where there is clear evidence that a defendant intended to take ownership and title to real property, courts have used the full fair market value of the property to grade the theft. People v. Jensen , 172 P.3d 946 (Colo. App. 2007) (grading theft based on the fair market value of land where the defendant received a warranty deed to the land from the victim as collateral for co-signing a felony appearance bond and subsequently filed a quitclaim deed to the property and refused to give either deed to the victim after the bond conditions lapsed); Com. v. Figueroa , 859 A.2d 793 , 798 (Pa. Super. 2004) (finding sufficient evidence that defendant intended to steal title to real property from deceased owners via forged deeds and grading the offense based on the value of the real property); Brown v. State , 64 N.E.3d 1219 , 1231 (Ind. App. 2016) (discussing defendant's intent to take ownership of a house, by occupying it much like the Defendant did in this case, with a value of at least  $100,000 in upholding a burglary conviction). As discussed above, the evidence in this case established that Defendant intended to deprive the Bank of ownership of the East Memphis real property, and not just the rental value of it. Thus, fair market value is the appropriate measure of the value of the real property Defendant obtained. To establish fair market value, the prosecution offered proof to show that the home sold for over $2 million shortly after Defendant's arrest and that it had been appraised for property tax purposes at $2.75 million in 2012 and $3 million in 2013. Thus, we conclude that sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdict finding Defendant guilty of theft of property valued at over $250,000, a Class A felony. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-105 (a)(6).