08/08/2024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The SM reviewed the data presented and concurs with the current market value. The PET did not provide credible evidence to indicate lower end products in the building of the subject. The SM cannot utilize the other market values in determining the subject value. The differences in their sale prices to their values had some below the 15% and some above the 15% cos per DR493. The PAO utilizes mass appraisal technology in their valuation. The evidence presented by both parties supports a market value of $560,000 for the newly constructed subject dwelling. The PAO commented on the construction price based on a value 13 months prior to the effective date of Jan 1, 2016 and that the construction company owner is a family member of the PET resulting in less than typical cost. The PET commented on low end product used in the construction phase which is not supported by any evidence. The comparable data presented supports the current value. The 1/2% difference from comparable ladjusted value to the current value does not warrant an adjustment. All the evidence presented by both parties support the current market value with the eight factors and criteria from the Florida Statutes applied. In conclusion, it is the magistrate's opinion that the PAO estimate of value is adequately supported and the PET failed to overcome the evidence presented by the PAO based on all the data presented. Factoring all the evidence provided the Just Value of $466,670 for the subject is supported. The PET request for a lower valuation is denied based on the evidence presented. -75-