09/14/2020 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Findings of Fact for Petition 2019-082: List of Property Appraiser Exhibits/Witnesses: * Travis King, representing the Property Appraisers Office (PAO) * Canda Brown, PAO Attorney * Summary of Testimony, 8 Criteria's, Photos, Aerials * Comparable Sales Approach, Exchange of Evidence, Methodology, 1 st and 8th Case Law, All Supporting Data List of Petitioner's Exhibits/Witnesses: * Petitioner did not show, but wanted evidence considered — VB Sutherland Inc * Property Card, prior sale of the Subject Summary of Evidence presented by the Property Appraiser: The Subject Property is a 963 square foot, single-family residence located at 1635 25th Avenue, Vero Beach. This property that was built in 1952. For valuation, the PAO provided the sales comparison approach to valu-. The summary of sales indicated a range from $130 to $162 per square foot. Overall the PAO concluded at $105 per square foot or $101,102. The PAO also provided evidence and testimony that they have considered all factors to determine just valuation by doing a sales comparison approach. The PAO provided rebuttal evidence that the petitioners'prior sale was not a qualified sale. The PAO presented verbal testimony that they consider a cost of sale adjustment in their CAMA system. Summary of Evidence presented by the Petitioner: The Petitioner submitted evidence that the property was, purchased in 2018 for $75,000. There was additional evidence presented that the persons were not related or involved in any of the trust. Magistrate's Analysis and Findings of. Facts: Based on the data presented at the hearing it is my opinion that the PAO provided the most complete valuation of this petition. The PAO provided the relevant comparbale sales and supported their value conclusion. The petitioner did not provide any additional data in regards to the value of the Subject Property besides the prior sale of the property. In typical appraisal practices more than one comparable is relied upon to determine value. Considering the valuations that the PAO provided, it is my opinion that the PAO values have also considered any cost of sale adjustments. Conclusions of Law for Petition 2019-082: Petition to be DENIED and Petitioner did not overcome PA's presumption of correctness: The Petitioner did not produce evidence that the Property Appraiser failed to consider the eight factors and criteria in Fla. Stat. section 193.011, nor did the Petitioner produce evidence that the Property Appraiser's value was arbitrarily based on appraisal practices which are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the property appraiser to comparable property within the same class and county. Therefore, the Petitioner did not, by a preponderance of the evidence, overcome the Property: Appraiser's presumption of correctness. There was not sufficient evidence that the Property Appraiser's value exceeds just value. Therefore the petition should be denied. 2019-082 Page 2 of 2 -21-