283 P.3d 823
Kan. Ct. App.2012Background
- Privitera owns the KenTacoHut restaurant in Overland Park, a three-brand fast-food property built in 1989 at a major retail intersection.
- For 2008 the County valued the property at $1,774,450; Privitera appealed to COTA’s small claims division, which reduced to $1,393,200.
- The County appealed to COTA’s regular division; Linda Clark, a County valuation expert, testified using a CAMA Marshall & Swift cost approach.
- Clark inspected the site in 2010, corrected building square footage (6,222 vs. 6,124) which increased the value in the cost data, but she did not perform a full new cost appraisal.
- Exhibit 1 supported a value of $1,778,660 via building, site improvements, and land; the land value used $16 per square foot; the County also produced an income approach estimate of $2,192,000 for context.
- COTA reinstated the original 2008 valuation of $1,774,450, finding substantial evidence supporting the County’s value and addressing Privitera’s burden-of-proof arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burden of proof at COTA | Privitera bore burden under 79-1609. | County bears burden absent complete income/expense statement from owner. | Privitera bears burden; COTA correctly allocated burden. |
| Validity of Clark's USPAP compliance | Clark's report failed Standards 1/2; mass appraisal doesn’t apply to single-property. | Report fits mass-appraisal framework per USPAP and Kansas directives. | Report admissible; standard-6 mass appraisal framework applied. |
| Highest and best use analysis | No formal highest and best use analysis required for mass appraisal. | Present use supported as highest and best use; no change needed. | Sufficient under Cashatt and Yellow Freight to support value. |
| Effect of counsel assistance and 10% adjustment | Counsel assistance required attribution; 10% uplift requiring justification. | Jurisdictional exception allows reliance on CAMA; testimony clarified issue. | Certification and testimony support validity; 10% adjustment adequately explained by trial testimony. |
| Use of income approach and comparable sales | Income approach data may be copied; concern about reliability. | Income data from county and mass-appraisal framework acceptable. | Income approach within mass-appraisal methodology; evidence supports value. |
Key Cases Cited
- Board of Saline County Comm'rs v. Jensen, 32 Kan. App. 2d 730 (Kan. App. 2004) (USPAP standards; written appraisals; mass appraisal context)
- In re Tax Appeal of Yellow Freight System, Inc., 36 Kan. App. 2d 210 (Kan. App. 2006) (USPAP Standards 1/2 vs 6; mass appraisal admissibility)
- In re Tax Appeal of Graceland College Center, 40 Kan. App. 2d 665 (Kan. App. 2008) (unlimited review of statutory interpretation; standards applicability)
- Wagner v. State, 46 Kan. App. 2d 858 (Kan. App. 2011) (three approaches to value; directives for PVD guidance)
- Board of Douglas County Comm'rs v. Cashatt, 23 Kan. App. 2d 532 (Kan. App. 1997) (highest and best use considerations in USPAP context)