Preview:

IN THE MAGISTRATE DIVISION OF THE OREGON TAX COURT Small Claims Property Tax ROSEMARY CAMPBELL DE COELLO and MARY ANN CAMPBELL, Plaintiffs, v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 000788C

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs have appealed the value of their home for tax years 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-00. Defendant moved in its Answer to dismiss the appeal. The error alleged exceeds 20 percent, however, and the case proceeded to trial under ORS 305.288. A trial was held October 9, 2000. Rosemary De Coello appeared on plaintiffs' behalf and testified as to her opinion of value based on two appraisal reports. Defendant appeared through Mr. Ken Collmer, an appraiser with the Multnomah County Assessor's Office. Mr. Collmer did not provide the court with any written materials. STATEMENT OF FACTS The subject property is a thirty year old, three bedroom, one bath home, located on an acre of land ten miles northwest of Portland near Highway 30. It is roughly 1,600 square feet in size. Plaintiffs acquired the property from their mother and have lived there many years. The real market value on the assessment and tax rolls is $220,100 for 199798 and 1998-99 and $237,700 for 1999-00. Plaintiffs request a reduction for all three DECISION AND JUDGMENT 1

years to $145,000. Plaintiffs submitted two appraisal reports prepared by licensed or certified independent fee appraisers. One appraiser estimates the value of the subject at $145,000, as of June 29, 1998, and the other at $202,000, as of January 27, 2000. The earlier appraisal was prepared for purposes of estimating the value of plaintiffs' deceased mother's estate. The second report was prepared in connection with a loan. Plaintiffs place most reliance on the June 1998 appraisal because in their opinion it seems to coincide with area sales for the time period in question. Plaintiffs opined that an appraiser might understandably inflate the value when the assignment is connected to a loan whereas the estimate is more likely to be accurate when valuing property for estate purposes. Defendant responded that it is just as likely the appraiser estimating an estate would want to be conservative, and come in with a value on the low end of the range. Mr. Collmer testified that he inspected plaintiffs' property and, with the aid of a computerized valuation program, estimated the value for tax year 2000-01 (January 1, 2000, assessment date) to be $202,500, which coincides with plaintiffs' January 2000 appraisal estimate of $202,000. He noted that a 5.6 acre parcel next door to the subject, but with a considerable amount of steep, unbuildable land, sold recently for $115,000, which he believes makes plaintiffs' land itself worth roughly that amount ($115,000). Plaintiffs dispute that opinion because their property is more than 4 acres smaller (1.1 acre versus 5.6 acres). Given that plaintiffs' property was admittedly difficult to value, Mr. Collmer was willing to accept plaintiffs' June 1998 appraisal for the 1997-98 tax year. Mr. Collmer recommended upward adjustments of $20,000 per year for the two succeeding tax years ($165,000 for 1988-99 and $185,000 for 1999-00). Plaintiffs were unwilling to accept the county's recommendation. DECISION AND JUDGMENT 2

Finally, Mr. Collmer testified that the area value trends for this area were 100 percent for 1998 (presumably from July 1, 1997, to January 1, 1998), 108 percent for 1999 (from 1998 to 1999) and 103 percent for 2000 (from 1999 to 2000). COURT'S ANALYSIS The issue is real market value, defined 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 The tax years at issue are 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-00. The assessment dates are July 1, 19972, January 1, 1998, and January 1, 1999. ORS 308.210(1). Plaintiffs bear the initial burden of proof and must establish an error in the record assessments by a preponderance of the evidence. ORS 305.427.3 "Preponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence." Feves v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971). The Oregon Supreme Court described the operation of the statutory burden thereafter as follows: "As in ordinary civil litigation, when the party bearing the burden of proof introduces sufficient

1

Reference is to the 1997 laws unless otherwise indicated.

Beginning with the 1998-99 tax year, the assessment date was changed from July 1 to January 1. See ORS 308.210 (1997). However, for the 1997-98 tax year, the legislature provided that property for that year "* * * shall be assessed * * * as of July 1, 1997, at 1:00 a.m." Or Laws 1997, ch 541,

Download DeCoello_000788C.pdf

Oregon Law