07/01/2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-112: Findings of Fact for Petition 2018-112: List of Property Appraiser Exhibits/Witnesses *Billy Auton representing the Property Appraisers Office (PAO) *Canda Brown Attorney for the Property Appraisers Office (PAO Attorney) *Summary of Valuation, Property Cards, and Summary of Sales *Sales comparison approach, Summary of Sales, Supporting Data -Property record cards, pictures and map. List of Petitioners Exhibits/Witnesses *Stephen Boyle for petitioner (James A. Dupay) *Real Estate Appraisal, Pictures, Map, charts. Summary of Evidence Presented by the Property Appraiser: The Subject Property is a single-family residence located on the barrier island, at 875 Live Oak Lane, Vero Beach, FL • 32963. The property consists of 2,512 square feet of living area built in 1979. The PAO presented six (6) comparable sales located on the barrier island. The comparable sales indicated a range from $395,124 to $725,000 per property and $206 to $251 per square foot. The PAO indicated a market value of $528,316 ($210.00/sf-la) on the sales comparison spreadsheet provided. All comparables are located on the barrier island ranging in size from 1,885 square feet to 2,510 square feet in living area. Built from 1970-1992. Case law was presented by the PAO, attorney. Summary of Evidence Presented by the Petitioner: The petitioner provided a real estate appraisal prepared by a local real estate appraiser, Mr. Steven Boyle. The Appraisal relied on the sales comparison approach to value. The appraisal techniques included adjustments for differences in age/condition, size, baths, and pool. Before adjustments, the comparable sales indicated a sales price of $180 to $205 per square foot. After adjustments, the petitioners comparable sales indicated at range from $465,000 to $484,000. With sales 1 & 2 providing the best indicators of market value, with sale 1 given the most weight due to being most similar age/condition, size, condition, amenities, and floor plan to the subject. The appraiser concluded at $475,000 prior to any lst/8th criteria adjustments. After cost of sale the adjustment would be $403,750. Magistrates Analysis & Finding of Facts Both the petitioner and the PAO considered the sales comparison approach. The main difference is that the petitioner provided adjustments typical to appraisal practice. It is unclear if the PAO did or did not consider any lst/8th Criteria adjustment and the petitioner did. Based on the evidence and analysis presented by the PAO at the hearing, they the PAO partially considered this. Based on the evidence presented at the at the hearing it is my opinion that the preponderance of the evidence was presented bythe petitioner's appraisal as the PAO did not consider all 8 criteria's and they did not use typical appraisal techniques and adjustments. The PAO relied solely on the price per square foot analysis with no adjustments for differences in age, and size. Also, the petitioner presented evidence that the comparable sales used have been valued by the PAO with discounts ranging from 6% to 22% of their sales prices. Therefore, a 15% adjustment is supported by the evidence presented at the hearing. Again, the PAO provided comparable sales in chart form with no adjustments for any considerations. While adjustments may have been made in the internal system for items, they were not made on the comparable sales selected in the chart for review at the hearing. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2018-112: Petition to be GRANTED to Petitioner- Petitioner over came PA's presumption of correctness: 2018-112 Page 2 of 3 -75-