04/29/2025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The five comps indicate $23k$2205 $222, $252; and $225 p:sf, indicating strong`support for a value between $220 and $230psf Petitioner:included all sales data within 2,500 ft that range from $220 to $250. psf. The property owner discusses their: purchase; which was under time duressao buy:'He: did not:have a real:estate agent and did not understand some features: He says it -does not have impact: windows; it is wood' frame; low -ceilings and is :on a septic tank He. states they overpaid :for the' house. The prior renovations: are not permitted and: there are issues with the quality of improvements: ... Rebuttal Testimony: ::.: :: Mr. Taylor. (Property. Appraiser) refers the Petitioners appraisal at $675,000 compared to:the AV of. $685,633; w'hich':: includes COS deduction. He disagrees with. the Petitioner's assertion that -the value should be $275,000 less than the purchase price::PA asked if there is'a mortgage and what that is. Petitioner did not respond with:an:amount.:PA feels the county's adjustments:are appropriate: He suggests the PA remeasure the home-based on the:Petitioner:'s -:appraisal-size difference. PAahen reviews the matched sales; for differences. The:differerice in bathroom count: results :. from -the way they looke& at the guest house. Mr. Boyle indicates his value did not include the 15% cost -of sale adjustment: He also states the PA takes the 15% ::COS prior:to making adjustments which:is noi:a standard: order of adjustment and it impacts the adjusted value :. . upward. He reviews the comps and adjustments appl.iedby the PA. MLS details are reviewed. Petitioner shows the PA adjustmentfor their sale 2 has an upward site value :adjustment of. $20,000.: He refers: to the PA records that indicate. a . downward: adjustment should be applied; not upward. PA a tees with :the Petitioner's statement on Land value :adjustment to PA sale 2, that the adjustment is -in the wrong: direction. Detailed discussion was:provided: on each .of:the PA :sales with; reference: to NMS. condition'And :quality. statements. He discusses problems with the subject that are not evident (shutters:and septitank)..Owner states they. .:overpaid for the house. :. Special Magistrate's analysis and Finding:of Facts: -::::: The PAO presented evidence to support the market value. -The Property Appraiser has included a sales comparison :approach and applied adjustments to:theGales compared to the subject: After both parties were given the opportunity..to be Beard, the special magistrate finds: that property appraiser's just:: valuation methodology complies with section -193.011, F.S.; and professionally a ccepted.appraisal practices. Property. Appraiser: established a presumption:of correctness for the assessment: The Petitioner provided an appraisal based on their: inspection,, and the resulting value of $675,000 less 15% would indicate $573;750, which'is 716/o of: the purchase price.:: The Magistrate gave: the following Remand instructions to the PA: Please check:building:measureinents and area ::... calculations and report back to Magistrate :within seven -days.. The PA remeasured the home and:Remand was returned on November: -19th. The. PA has .calculated:the living area at 2,482 SF, for a: total la. of 2,912 :SF'including: guest House. This is a -decrease of 93 SF and like the Petitioner's figure. PA also revised their -assessed value to $665,721. or$229 psf, a reduction of about $20,000. Pk also refers:to the Petitioners'. appraisal that indicates.a value :of $232p' It is . ::. noted the Petitioner's value did not include a. deduction for cost of sale: Magistrate reviews the 2 matched sales. PA sale 2 -indicates an adjusted value of $707,715 and Petitioner adjusts this sale to:$698,IK:or:$593,385'after COS: The main difference is for guest house:methodology, sites ze/land value, and-.` condition. PA sale 1 indicates an adjusted value of $657,925 and Petitioner -adjusts this sale to $691,400 or $587;690 after COS. Th' main difference s for guesthouse methodology; site size/land value; and condition. The PA: has provided a Revised Appraisal (due to: size change) not yetreflected in Axia: The Magistrate has. rev: the features of the structure along with testimony on the quality/condition; and the sales used by the parties. The lower quality construction observation:for the guesthouse: is -reasonable: The P.etitioner's assessment :of the interior quality . and condition is given weight due to their inspection and certification: Numerous sale adjustment factors such as the :land value:adjusiment to sale 2, and the quality/conditiodfactors were reviewed:resulting-in a concluded value reduction of $35,000 -along with the approximate $20;000 reduction for the reduced building area. These f gures were deducted from:the original AV of $685,633.: Magistrate has reconciled to a Rounded dust Value:at $640,600, which:is reasonably supported by the sales data and represents 80%a of the saleprice. The Petitioner has overcome the.presumptioriof correctness established at the hearing by the property appraiser.. 2024-067:..: Page 3 of 4 =16-