Clapa v. Multnomah County Assessor ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                 IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
    MAGISTRATE DIVISION
    Property Tax
    BENJAMIN CLAPA,                                   )
    )
    Plaintiff,                         )   TC-MD 111125D
    )
    v.                                         )
    )
    MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR,                        )
    )
    Defendant.                         )   DECISION
    Plaintiff appeals the 2010-11 real market value of property identified as Account
    R175184 (subject property). A trial was held in the Oregon Tax Courtroom, Salem, Oregon on
    April 3, 2012. Plaintiff appeared on his own behalf. Jeffrey Brown (Brown), Real Property
    Appraiser, Multnomah County Oregon, Division of Assessment, Recording & Taxation,
    appeared on behalf of Defendant.
    Defendant’s Exhibit A was admitted, noting Plaintiff’s objection. Plaintiff objected to
    Defendant’s evidence being admitted, stating that his evidence was not admitted even though he
    brought his comparable sales data to court.
    I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
    Plaintiff testified that he has been a real estate broker for more than 30 years. Plaintiff
    testified that 2005 was the “peak of the market” and since then, the market has gone “down, big
    time.” Plaintiff testified that he believes his requested 2010-11 real market value of $110,000
    was the subject property’s real market value as of January 1, 2010.
    Brown offered Defendant’s Appraisal Report, stating that even though “all three
    approaches to value were considered in the course of this appraisal process * * * the Sales
    Comparison Approach was regarded as the most relevant and reliable valuation method for the
    DECISION TC-MD 111125D                                                                               1
    subject property * * *.” (Def’s Ex A at 4.) The report stated that “[t]he adjusted sales prices [of
    the three] comparable[] [properties] range[] from $195,900 to $217,550[,]” concluding that “a
    retrospective estimate of market value of $205,000 is indicated and well supported.” (Id.) The
    Multnomah County Board of Property Tax Appeals Order, dated March 4, 2011, determined a
    real market value of $200,370. (Ptf’s Compl at 2.)
    II. ANALYSIS
    The issue before this court is the subject property’s real market value for the tax year
    2010-11. “Real market value is the standard used throughout the ad valorem statutes except for
    special assessments.” Richardson v. Clackamas County Assessor, TC–MD No 020869D, WL
    21263620, at *2 (Mar 26, 2003) (citing Gangle v. Dept. of Rev., 
    13 OTR 343
    , 345 (1995)).
    ORS 308.205(1)1 defines the “real market value” of both real and personal property as “the
    amount in cash that could reasonably be expected to be paid by an informed buyer to an
    informed seller [in exchange for the property], each acting without compulsion in an arm’s-
    length transaction occurring as of the assessment date for the tax year.” OAR 150-308.205-
    (A)(2)(a) (2010) sets out three “approaches” that Plaintiff “must” consider when determining the real
    market value of property: the sales comparison approach, cost approach, and income approach.
    See ORS 308.205(2). Plaintiff did not use any of the three approaches. Defendant relied on the sales
    comparison approach.
    “In all proceedings before the judge or a magistrate of the tax court and upon appeal
    therefrom, a preponderance of the evidence shall suffice to sustain the burden of proof. The
    burden of proof shall fall upon the party seeking affirmative relief * * *.” ORS 305.427.
    Plaintiff must establish his claim “by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or
    1
    All references to Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to the 2009 edition.
    DECISION TC-MD 111125D                                                                              2
    greater weight of evidence.” Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev., TC No 4530, WL 914208 at *2 (July 12,
    2001) (citing Feves v. Dept. of Rev., 
    4 OTR 302
     (1971)). This court has stated that “it is not
    enough for a taxpayer to criticize a county’s position. Taxpayers must provide competent
    evidence of the RMV [Real Market Value] of their property.” Poddar v. Dept. of Rev., 
    18 OTR 324
    , 332 (2005) (quoting Woods v. Dept. of Rev., 
    16 OTR 56
    , 59 (2002) (citation omitted), vac’d
    and rem’d in part on other grounds, 
    341 Or 186
    , 139 P3d 962 (2006). Competent evidence
    includes appraisal reports and sales adjusted for time, location, size, quality, and other
    distinguishing differences, and testimony from licensed professionals such as appraisers, real
    estate agents and licensed brokers.
    Plaintiff offered his own testimony as an Oregon licensed real estate broker in support of his
    requested real market value. He did not submit an appraisal report. Plaintiff’s only evidence to rebut
    Defendant’s appraisal report was his belief that the real market value of the subject property was
    incorrect based on comparable sale data that he collected. Because Plaintiff failed to follow the
    court’s exhibit evidence rules, the court did not have access to Plaintiff’s evidence.
    Plaintiff’s evidence in support of its requested real market value reduction is
    inconclusive. When the “evidence is inconclusive or unpersuasive, the taxpayer will have failed
    to meet his burden of proof * * *.” Reed v. Dept. of Rev., 
    310 Or 260
    , 265, 
    798 P2d 235
     (1990).
    Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of proof.
    Even though the burden has not shifted, the court has jurisdiction to determine the “real
    market value or correct valuation on the basis of the evidence before the court * * *.” ORS 305.412.
    Defendant’s comparable sales approach supports the real market value on the tax roll.
    III. CONCLUSION
    After a review of the Plaintiff’s testimony, the court concludes that Plaintiff failed to
    carry his burden of proof. Now, therefore,
    DECISION TC-MD 111125D                                                                                  3
    IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s appeal is denied.
    Dated this    day of May 2012.
    JILL A. TANNER
    PRESIDING MAGISTRATE
    If you want to appeal this Decision, file a Complaint in the Regular Division of
    the Oregon Tax Court, by mailing to: 1163 State Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563;
    or by hand delivery to: Fourth Floor, 1241 State Street, Salem, OR.
    Your Complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date of the Decision
    or this Decision becomes final and cannot be changed.
    This document was signed by Presiding Magistrate Jill A. Tanner on May 21,
    2012. The Court filed and entered this document on May 21, 2012.
    DECISION TC-MD 111125D                                                             4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: TC-MD 111125D

Filed Date: 5/21/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/11/2024