Clackamas County Assessor v. Parker Development NW ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                  IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
    MAGISTRATE DIVISION
    Property Tax
    CLACKAMAS COUNTY ASSESSOR,                         )
    )
    Plaintiff,                         )   TC-MD 120165C
    )
    v.                                         )
    )
    PARKER DEVELOPMENT NW INC.,                        )
    )
    Defendant.                         )   DECISION
    Plaintiff Clackamas County Assessor filed a Complaint with this court seeking an
    increase in the real market value (RMV) of certain real property identified in the assessor‟s
    records as Account 05004830 for the 2011-12 tax year. The court held an uncontested trial by
    telephone December 3, 2012, following the court‟s issuance of an Order on September 24, 2012,
    denying Plaintiff‟s Motion for Default because, although Defendant failed to timely respond to
    Plaintiff‟s Complaint, Plaintiff‟s Complaint lacked the necessary competent evidence to carry the
    requisite burden of proof. The court‟s June 15, 2012, and its September 24, 2012, Orders are
    incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiff was represented at the December 3, 2012, trial by
    Matt Healy (Healy), Senior Appraiser, Clackamas County Assessor‟s office.
    Plaintiff‟s Exhibit 1 was admitted into evidence at trial.
    I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
    The subject property is a vacant 0.45 acre undeveloped residential homesite lot in an
    exclusive gated community in West Linn, located within a 24 lot subdivision known as Le
    Chevalier. (Ptf‟s Ex 1 at 4.) Lots in that subdivision are between approximately one-half acre
    and one and one-half acres in size. (Id.) Twenty of the 24 lots in that subdivision have been
    developed. (Id.) The remaining four are vacant; one of four vacant lots was listed for sale at the
    time of trial. (Id.)
    DECISION TC-MD 120165C                                                                           1
    The owner of the subject property, Defendant Parker Development NW Inc., appealed the
    RMV of the land to the Clackamas County Board of Property Tax Appeals (Board) and the
    Board issued an order on or about March 1, 2012, reducing the RMV from $451,202 to
    $235,000. (Ptf‟s Compl at 2.) In its Complaint, Plaintiff requested an increase in the RMV to
    the $451,202 value originally placed on the property by the assessor‟s office prior to the Board‟s
    reduction. (Id. at 1.)
    Plaintiff, by and through its representative Healy, submitted a 19-page summary appraisal
    report with a written narrative description of the subject property, photographs of the subject,
    comparables used in Plaintiff‟s appraisal, various maps showing the relevant portion of the
    subdivision plat drawing, an aerial view of the subject subdivision, a sales comparison grid, and
    a fairly detailed two page narrative explaining adjustments Plaintiff made to its comparables.
    (Ptf‟s Ex 1.) Healy, who has 11-plus years of appraisal experience with the Clackamas County
    Assessor‟s office (April 2001 – December 2012) and eight years of experience as an independent
    fee appraiser, concluded that the “sales comparison approach is considered the only reliable
    indicator of the subject‟s market value and indicates a market value for the subject of $400,000
    as of 1/1/2011.” (Id. at 18-19.)
    At trial, Healy testified that he had essentially two comparables, one of which (#2) is
    located adjacent to the subject property, and the other (# 1) located on the same block about
    seven lots away from the subject property. (See also Ptf‟s Ex 1 at 8-10.) Healy‟s comparable
    number one sold in March 2010 for $460,000. (Id. at 10.) Healy made adjustments for
    differences in size, topography, and view, and, with net adjustments of $23,538 (negative),
    arrived at an adjusted sale price for that property of $436,462. (Id.) Healy‟s comparable number
    three is the same property as his comparable number one, but represents a “current” listing for
    that property of $600,000. Healy applied a negative ten percent adjustment ($60,000) to the list
    DECISION TC-MD 120165C                                                                              2
    price because he felt that represented the upper end of the value range for that property, and a
    positive 11 percent adjustment ($66,000) to account for changes in market conditions, for a net
    market adjustment of minus $6,000. (Id.) Healy testified, and his report reflects, that his
    comparable sale number two, which is located immediately adjacent to the subject property,
    “was given the most weight as it is located next to the subject and required fewer adjustments.”
    (Id. at 13.) Healy‟s adjusted sale price for comparable number two is $399,154. (Id. at 10.)
    Healy concluded that the sales of comparables one and two, and the current listing of comparable
    number one (set out as comparable #3 in his appraisal) “supports a value estimate for the subject
    of $400,000.” (Id. at 10, 13.)
    II. ANALYSIS
    RMV is defined by statute as “the amount in cash that could reasonably be expected to be
    paid by an informed buyer to an informed seller, each acting without compulsion in an arm‟s-
    length transaction occurring as of the assessment date for the tax year.” ORS 308.205(1).1 The
    assessment date for the 2011-12 tax year was January 1, 2011. See generally ORS 308.007.
    Plaintiff bears the burden of proof which, by statute, is a “preponderance” of the
    evidence. ORS 305.427. This court has previously stated that a preponderance of the evidence
    means “the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” Yarborough v.
    Department of Revenue, TC 5075, WL 4094875 *3 (Sept 18, 2012) (citing Feves v. Dept. of
    Revenue, 
    4 OTR 302
    , 312 (1971)).
    Plaintiff complied with the applicable administrative rule, which requires that
    consideration be given to the three approaches to value (income, cost, and sales comparison),
    though they need not all be used. OAR 150-308.205-(A)(2)(a); see also Allen v. Dept. of Rev.,
    1
    The court‟s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2009.
    DECISION TC-MD 120165C                                                                             3
    
    17 OTR 248
    , 252 (2003); Gangle v. Dept. of Rev., 
    13 OTR 343
    , 345 (1995). Ultimately,
    Plaintiff concluded that the sales comparison approach was the only reliable indicator of value
    for the subject; Healy concluded that the cost approach was inapplicable because there are no
    improvements to the land, and the income approach was inapplicable because “vacant residential
    land is generally not leased or used to generate income.” (Ptf‟s Ex 1 at 11, 18); See Pacific
    Power & Light Co. v. Dept. of Revenue., 
    286 Or 529
    , 533, 
    596 P2d 912
     (1979) (ruling that
    “whether in any given assessment one [valuation] approach should be used exclusive of the
    others or is preferable to another or to a combination of approaches is a question of fact to be
    determined by the court upon the record”).
    “Under the sales comparison approach, the value of a property is derived by „comparing
    the subject property with similar properties, called comparable sales.‟ That comparison is based
    on many factors, and adjustments are made for any differences between the comparable sales and
    the subject property so that the appraiser can derive a value for the subject property.” Magno v.
    Dept. of Rev., 
    19 OTR 51
    , 58 (2006) (citations omitted); see also OAR 150-308.250-(A)(2)(c)
    (“In utilizing the sales comparison approach only actual market transactions of property
    comparable to the subject, or adjusted to be comparable, will be used.”).
    The court finds that Plaintiff presented persuasive evidence that the RMV of the subject
    property, as of January 1, 2011, was $400,000. Plaintiff‟s comparables are in the same
    neighborhood as the subject and were adjusted for differences between those sales and the
    subject property. Because this was an uncontested trial following motion for default, no
    evidence was presented by or on behalf of the property owner. The greater weight of the
    evidence before the court supports an increase in RMV to $400,000. This number deviates from
    the $451,202 RMV pleaded in the Complaint, but the legislature has given the court the
    ///
    DECISION TC-MD 120165C                                                                              4
    authority “to determine the real market value or correct valuation on the basis of the evidence
    before the court, without regard to the values pleaded by the parties.” ORS 305.412.
    III. CONCLUSION
    The court concludes that, for the 2011-12 tax year, the real market value of the subject
    property, Account 05004830, should be increased from $235,000 to $400,000. Now, therefore,
    IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff‟s Motion for Default is denied.
    IT IS THE FURTHER DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff‟s appeal is granted in
    part, with the real market value of property identified as Account 05004830 increased to
    $400,000 for the 2011-12 tax year, as set forth above.
    Dated this      day of December 2012.
    DAN ROBINSON
    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 Magistrate Dan Robinson on December 7, 2012.
    The Court filed and entered this document on December 7, 2012.
    DECISION TC-MD 120165C                                                                            5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: TC-MD 120165C

Filed Date: 12/7/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/11/2024