# Weischedel v. Multnomah County Assessor

> Oregon Tax Court · November 19, 2012

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10605863

## Case

- **Court:** Oregon Tax Court
- **Decided:** November 19, 2012
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10605863

## Opinion text

IN THE OREGON TAX COURT
MAGISTRATE DIVISION
Property Tax

CANDICE WEISCHEDEL, )
)
Plaintiff, ) TC-MD 120162C
)
v. )
)
MULTNOMAH COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Defendant. ) DECISION

Plaintiff has appealed the real market value (RMV) of a four unit apartment complex

identified in the assessor’s records as Account R160583. The tax year at issue is 2011-12.

Plaintiff timely appealed from an order of the Multnomah County Board of Property Tax

Appeals (Board), which sustained the property’s RMV.

Trial on the matter was held by telephone October 1, 2012. Plaintiff was represented by

Greg Ford (Ford), an Oregon licensed real estate broker who is married to Plaintiff. Defendant

was represented by Jeff Brown (Brown) and Barry Dayton (Dayton), both of whom are

appraisers employed by Defendant and who testified at trial. Dayton, whose name appears on

Defendant’s appraisal report, is an Oregon Registered Appraiser III, with 20 years real estate

experience, mostly working in the private sector before joining the assessor’s staff in September

2011. (Def’s Ex A at 19.)

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS

According to the parties’ testimony and the documentary evidence, the subject property is

a four unit apartment complex (fourplex) on Southwest Martha Street in Portland, Oregon, built

in 1969. (Ptf’s Ex 1; Def’s Ex A at 5, 11.) The building is a two story structure with four units

DECISION TC-MD 120162C 1
of approximately identical size.1 The parties agree that each unit has two bedrooms and one

bathroom, that there is no covered parking, and that the property is located within one-half block

of State Highway 10, which, according to the uncontroverted testimony of Ford, is a fairly busy

thoroughfare. (Ptf’s Ex 1 at 2; Def’s Ex A at 12, 14.)

Ford further describes the property in a two page letter submitted to the court as Exhibit 1

as follows: “The subject property is a stacked fourplex with two lower units and two upper units.

The bottom units have no privacy on [their] 5’x8’ and 5’x12’ patios. The tenants living above

walk by the lower units to go up stairs to [their] units.” (Ptf’s Ex 1 at 2.) Ford further states that

“[t]here are no yards, garages, carports, washer and dryer hook-ups, [or] fireplaces.” (Id.)

Defendant placed a total RMV on the subject property of $347,080. (Ptf’s Compl at 4.)

The property’s maximum assessed value (MAV) is $348,210. (Id.) Oregon law provides that

assessed value (AV) is the lesser of RMV or MAV. ORS 308.146(2).2 Thus, in this case the

property’s AV is $347,080. (Ptf’s Compl at 4.)

Plaintiff unsuccessfully appealed those values to the Board and timely appealed the

Board’s order sustaining the values to this court. Plaintiff has requested a reduction in the RMV

to $250,000, with a $91,477.45 allocated to the land and $158,522.55 to the structure. (Ptf’s

Compl at 1.) Plaintiff also requested that the AV be reduced to $250,000. (Id.) Defendant

requests that the court sustain the current values. (Def’s Ans.)

Ford testified that the subject property was listed for sale for approximately 10 months,

that the asking price in January 2011 was $325,000, and was reduced to $275,000 around the end

1
While it is not completely clear to the court, it appears as though the parties differ slightly in their
opinions on the size of the property, although the disagreement, if indeed there is one, is minor. Dayton’s report
indicates that each of the units is 785 square feet whereas an e-mail drafted by Plaintiff to Marc and Kathy Rogers
states that the units are approximately 750 square feet. (Ptf’s Exs 5, 2; Def’s Ex A at 12.)
2
The court’s references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) are to 2009.

DECISION TC-MD 120162C 2
of January or early February 2011. Dayton’s testimony and report indicate that the final asking

price in August 2011 was $285,000. (Def’s Ex A at 5.) Ford further testified that Plaintiff had

received three offers for the property for prices between $230,000 and $275,000. According to

his testimony, Plaintiff rejected the $230,000 offer and the $275,000 offer was withdrawn after

the prospective buyer inspected the property. There was no independent written corroborating

documentation to support that testimony, such as a written offer from the alleged prospective

buyers or their representatives (real estate agents or brokers), or even an e-mail to that effect.

Plaintiff also submitted two comparative market analyses (CMAs) prepared by real estate

brokers. (Ptf’s Exs 2-15.) One CMA was prepared in September 2012 by Marc Rogers (Rogers).

(Ptf’s Ex 3.) The other analysis was prepared by Brent Maxson (Maxson). (Ptf’s Ex 8.) Neither

broker testified at trial. Rogers apparently concludes with a value estimate of $315,000 and

Maxson concludes with a “Recommended Price” of $300,000. (Ptf’s Exs 4, 15.) 3

While Rogers did not testify, his market analysis grid sheet reflects that he considered

one triplex listed for $307,000 with a sale pending, one canceled listing of a triplex offered for

$215,000, two fourplexes with expired listings at $335,000, and three sales of older and slightly

smaller four and three unit properties, two of which sold in May 2012 for $304,900 and

$308,000, and the third in July 2012 for $240,000. (Ptf’s Ex 3.) Ford testified that Rogers

concluded with a value range of $282,900 to $310,000. The only evidence to support Ford’s

testimony regarding Rogers’ purported value range is a handwritten note on a piece of paper that

appears to be a compilation of portions of three different documents that includes those figures

///
3
Ford testified that Rogers gave him a “list price” of between $282,900 and $310,000. However, the actual
single page grid sheet market analysis does not include a list price or value estimate, etc., and an e-mail submitted by
Plaintiff, written to Ford by Rogers, states that he is attaching his market analysis and that “[t]he numbers show
approximately $315,000 however it didn’t move at $285,000 and there is a new 4-plex listing at 5041 SW Beaverton
Hillsdale Hwy for $299,000.” (Ptf’s Ex 4.)

DECISION TC-MD 120162C 3
and the words “price $300,000.” (Ptf’s Ex 2.) The court has no way of knowing who wrote

those numbers on that paper.

Maxson’s CMA is more professional looking (and slightly lengthier) than Rogers’, and

presents a “Recommended Price” of $300,000. (Ptf’s Exs 7, 15.) Maxson also evaluated a

combination of active and expired listings and one sale of a fourplex in Beaverton for $310,000

with a sales date of August 2, 2012. (Id. at 13, 14.) Two of Maxson’s remaining four properties

were expired listings, a third was an active listing of a fourplex in Beaverton for $282,900, and

the fourth was a fourplex in Beaverton with a sale pending at $339,000. (Ptf’s Exs 12-14.)

Ford acknowledged on cross-examination that neither of the brokers who performed

Plaintiff’s CMAs made any adjustments to their comparable properties, which included a mix of

current and expired listings, sales and pending sales. He further acknowledged that neither of the

brokers inspected the interior of any of the units within the subject property, although, according

to Ford, the brokers spoke with Plaintiff’s tenants, some of whom allegedly told them (the

brokers) that they might move, and feared that the rents might be increased. Ford also testified

on cross that he told both brokers that the reason he or Plaintiff had requested a CMA was

because Plaintiff was involved in a property appeal.

Dayton’s appraisal considered all three approaches to value, but rejected the cost

approach due to the age and effective condition of the property. (Def’s Ex A at 10, 8.) Dayton

selected three comparable sales for his “market approach,” and after making what he believed to

be appropriate adjustments, concluded that the comparables had adjusted sale prices ranging

from $349,060 to $384,000. (Id. at 8.) Dayton concluded with a final rounded value of

$368,000 from his comparable sales analysis. (Id.) Dayton’s income approach generated an

indicated value of $366,600 based on an indicated market rent of $2,600 per month multiplied by

DECISION TC-MD 120162C 4
a gross rent multiplier of 141. (Id. at 9.) Dayton notes in his report that “[t]he subject was

deemed to be slightly under market rent at the actual rents reported by the Plaintiff of $2,510 per

month for all four units.” (Id.) Dayton’s final reconciled retrospective opinion of RMV as of

January 1, 2011, is $367,000. (Id. at 10.)

II. ANALYSIS

In Oregon, all real property “not exempt from ad valorem property taxation or subject to

special assessment shall be valued at 100 percent of its real market value.” ORS 308.232.

RMV is defined in ORS 308.205(1) as follows:

“Real market value of all property, real and personal, means 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.”

RMV is determined by the particular methods and procedures adopted by the Department

of Revenue. ORS 308.205(2). There are three approaches to valuation (income, cost, and sales

comparison) that must be considered when determining the real market value of a property.

OAR 150-308.205-(A)(2)(a) (stating that all three approaches must be considered, although all

three approaches may not be applicable to the valuation of a given property); see also Allen v.

Dept. of Rev., 17 OTR 248, 252 (2003); Gangle v. Dept. of Rev., 13 OTR 343, 345 (1995);

Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate 130 (13th ed 2008). The valuation approach to

be used (or combination of approaches) is a question of fact to be determined by the court upon

the record. Pacific Power & Light Co. v. Dept. of Rev., 286 Or 529, 533, 596 P2d 912 (1979)

(“[W]hether 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.”).

///

DECISION TC-MD 120162C 5
As the party seeking affirmative relief, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the

subject property’s RMV is incorrect on the tax roll. See ORS 305.427. Plaintiff must establish

his claim “by a preponderance of the evidence, or the more convincing or greater weight of

evidence.” Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev., TC No 4530, WL 914208 at *2 (July 12, 2001) (citing

Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302 (1971)).

Burden of proof requires that the party seeking relief (Plaintiff in this case) provide

evidence to support its argument. The evidence that a plaintiff provides must be competent

evidence of the requested RMV of the property in order to sustain the burden of proof. Woods v.

Dept. of Rev., 16 OTR 56, 59 (2002).

“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.” Danielson v. Multnomah County

Assessor, TC-MD No 110300D, WL 879285 (March 13, 2012). Evidence that is inconclusive or

unpersuasive is insufficient to sustain the burden of proof. Reed v. Dept. of Rev., 310 Or 260,

265, 798 P2d 235 (1990).

The value of property is ultimately a question of fact. Chart Development Corp. v. Dept.

of Rev., 16 OTR 9, 11 (2001) (citation omitted). Finally, “the court has jurisdiction 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.

As indicated above, the RMV currently on the assessment and tax rolls is $347,080.

While Plaintiff requests a reduction in that value to $250,000, the evidence presented does not

persuade the court that there is an error in the value on the rolls, never mind that a reduction to

$250,000 is warranted. Defendant provided a more comprehensive and persuasive value

DECISION TC-MD 120162C 6
estimate of $367,000, but asked that the court merely sustain the current RMV of $347,080. This

court has previously noted that value is a range rather than an absolute. Price v. Dept. of Rev., 7

OTR 18, 25 (1977). Given that the court finds Plaintiff’s evidence to be unpersuasive and that

Defendant’s evidence suggests a value only slightly higher than that on the rolls, coupled with

the fact that Defendant has requested that the court sustain the current roll values, the court finds

that the values on the assessment and tax rolls, as sustained by the Board, should be upheld.

III. CONCLUSION

The court has considered the evidence and concludes that Plaintiff’s request for a

reduction in the real market value of the subject property, identified as Account R160583, for the

2011-12 tax year is not supported by the evidence and that Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden

of proof. Plaintiff’s evidence is simply not persuasive. Moreover, the court further concludes

that the values currently on the assessment and tax rolls should be sustained. Now, therefore,

IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiff’s appeal is denied.

Dated this day of November 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 November 19, 2012.
The Court filed and entered this document on November 19, 2012.

DECISION TC-MD 120162C 7

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10605863. Public record. Not legal advice.