Clunes v. Clackamas County Assessor
TC-MD 120255C
| Or. T.C. | Nov 14, 2012Background
- RMV for the subject property (Account 01415828) for the 2011-12 tax year is appealed; RMV on the rolls, reduced by BOPTA, is 398,000 with assessment date January 1, 2011.
- Subject property is a 3,794 sq ft, two-story, three-level single-family home built in 1990 on a 9,265 sq ft lot in Clackamas, OR; features include 3 bedrooms, 2 full baths, 2 half baths, a 4-5 car attached garage, and various upscale interior/exterior amenities.
- Defendant set RMV at 459,832 (land 115,442; structures 344,090); MAV and AV are 451,653; Plaintiff appealed to BOPTA which reduced RMV of structures to 282,558, yielding total RMV 398,000; AV reduced to 398,000 per ORS 308.146(2).
- Plaintiff’s evidence consists of three comparables and a brief explanation of a sales-comparison approach; Defendant presents six comparables and a different set of adjustments; both sides rely on the sales comparison method as primary valuation approach.
- Court found Plaintiff’s comparables were not adequately adjusted or supported by market data; Defendant’s evidence is given more weight overall; court adopts the BOPTA-reduced value of 398,000 as to the 2011-12 RMV.
- Conclusion: Plaintiff did not prove entitlement to a reduction; the court denies the appeal and affirms the 398,000 RMV.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the correct RMV for 2011-12? | Plaintiff argues for a reduction to 350,000 (initially 350,000; later 350,000 adjusted) based on plaintiff’s comparables. | Defendant contends RMV should remain at 398,000 (as reduced by BOPTA) based on comparative data and adjustments. | Plaintiff did not prove a preponderance of evidence to lower RMV; court sustains 398,000. |
| Are Plaintiff’s comparable adjustments market-based and reliable? | Anderson’s adjustments (including quality and time) are market-based and support lower RMV. | Anderson’s adjustments are flawed or incomplete (time, basement, and view adjustments, etc.). | Plaintiff’s adjustments deemed unpersuasive; not competent evidence to support reduction. |
| Is Defendant’s evidence more credible or helpful in determining RMV? | Defendant’s comp grid shows adjustments leading to a value near 390,000. | Defendant’s adjusted sales prices more accurately reflect market conditions. | Defendant’s evidence supports 398,000 after considering adjustments and court’s evaluation. |
| Is there a requirement to rely on all three valuation approaches (sales, cost, income)? | Sales comparison is the most appropriate approach and was properly applied; other methods deemed less credible here. |
Key Cases Cited
- McKee v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 58 (Or. Tax 2004) (appraiser testimony and market data form basis for RMV weight)
- Poddar v. Dept. of Rev., 18 OTR 324 (Or. Tax 2005) (competent evidence required for RMV reductions)
- Reed v. Dept. of Rev., 310 Or 260 (Or. 1990) (substantial evidence standard for valuation)
- Schaefer v. Dept. of Rev., 4 OTR 302 (Or. Tax 1971) (burden of proof and evidentiary standards in RMV appeals)
- Gangle v. Dept. Of Rev., 13 OTR 343 (Or. Tax 1987) (RMV valuation principles and market data)