It has frequently been
recognized that the purchase price of the subject property can be a good way to
prove an accurate market value-in-use for assessment purposes. And there is no
dispute that the Petitioners bought the property for $5,500. The Respondent
argued that the Petitioners’ purchase price represents a distressed sale and
does not indicate what this property would bring on the open market. Apparently
the Respondent draws that conclusion from the fact that the property had been
through foreclosure proceedings and from the fact that the asking price started
at $34,900. The evidence, however, establishes that this property was listed
with a realtor for approximately ten months. During that time the property had
substantial exposure on the open market and the asking price was reduced to
$5,999. The Respondent presented no substantial basis for concluding that the
actual selling price represents anything other than an open market transaction.
But one way or the other, that is not the point that determines this case.
The Petitioners bought the property on December 20, 2006, which is over a year before the valuation date for the 2009 assessment, and over three years before the valuation date for the 2010 assessment. The Petitioners apparently recognized this difference because during the hearing they requested assessments between $7,500 and $10,000 for both years. But they offered nothing to relate their purchase price to the relevant valuation dates, and nothing to prove that the value was what they requested. See Long, 821 N.E.2d at 471. Therefore, they failed to make a prima facie case based on purchase price.
