Glasser v. Douglas County Assessor
TC-MD 130188N
| Or. T.C. | Dec 3, 2013Background
- Plaintiffs Robert and Leslie Glasser appealed the 2012–13 real market value of their North Umpqua River residence (3,438 sq ft home on 1.27 acres with substantial outbuildings). Trial held Sept. 19, 2013; evidence included Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1–9 and Defendant’s Exhibit A.
- Assessor’s appraiser (Vedder) inspected the property, reclassified it from class 6 to class 5+, and recommended a board value of $636,129 (board had set land value at $213,960; max assessed value $574,011).
- Plaintiffs sought a $465,000 real market value, relying on: (1) Plaintiffs’ 2005–06 construction profit-and-loss statements (approx. $286,000) adjusted upward by an estimated 10% to 2012; and (2) three 2012 comparable sales and various Zillow/listing printouts (no adjustments made to comparables).
- Vedder used the sales-comparison approach, identified six improved sales and four bare-land sales along the river, adjusted comparables (sale 1 and sale 2 were most comparable), and concluded $636,129 as of January 1, 2012.
- The court treated Plaintiffs as having the burden of proof, found Plaintiffs’ cost evidence unreliable and their sales evidence noncompliant (no adjustments, not actual market transactions), accepted Vedder’s adjusted sales-comparison analysis, and denied the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Real market value as of Jan. 1, 2012 | Glasser: value = $465,000 based on construction costs and selected 2012 sales/listings | Vedder/Assessor: value = $636,129 based on adjusted sales-comparison approach | Court sustains $636,129; Plaintiffs failed to meet burden |
| Weight/admissibility of cost approach evidence | Glasser: 2005–06 actual construction costs (plus 10% trend) reflect replacement cost | Vedder: cost evidence incomplete/outdated; no contractor profit/overhead; not current cost | Court gives Glasser’s cost evidence no weight (not current, incomplete) |
| Use of sales-comparison evidence and required adjustments | Glasser: three 2012 sales and Zillow/listings support lower per-sq-ft value; made no adjustments | Vedder: used six improved sales (made adjustments for differences) and bare-land sales to support adjustments | Court rejects Glasser’s unadjusted comparables and Zillow data; accepts Vedder’s adjusted sales-comparison analysis |
| Reliance on past (2006–07) valuation and time-trending method | Glasser: construct 2006–07 value from actual costs then trend down 32% to 2012 | Vedder: (and court) no authority supports deriving 2012 value by trending an allegedly incorrect 2006 value | Court rejects time-trend method; 2006–07 tax year is outside court’s jurisdiction and method unsupported |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. Dept. of Rev., 310 Or. 260, 798 P.2d 235 (1990) (taxpayer must produce persuasive evidence; if evidence is inconclusive taxpayer fails to meet burden)