An actual arm’s-length sale of
the subject property can be some of the best evidence of its market
value-in-use. Here, the Rugsakens attempted to prove their case based on what
they paid for the subject property and what they sold it for. Mr. Rugsaken
testified that they paid $3,000 for each lot in June 2006 and they got $3,100
for each lot when they sold in August 2012. There is some dispute about their
original purchase price—the sales disclosure form indicates it was $8,100.
There also is some dispute about whether either transaction was an arm’s-length
sale that satisfied commonly accepted criteria for being a reliable indication
of market value. Where the
only documentation regarding either sale contradicts Mr. Rugsaken’s
testimony, neither version is particularly credible. But determining that
question is not essential. Even assuming, arguendo, that Mr. Rugsaken’s
testimony about the price is accurate and that both were arm’s-length
transactions, the timing is problematic. Nothing in the record establishes how
the June 2006 sale price or the August 2012 sale price might relate to a value
as of March 1, 2010. For that reason alone, neither transaction helps to prove
a more accurate assessed value for the subject property.
As previously
noted, there are other potential ways to prove what a more accurate assessed
valuation for a property might be. Sales information about comparable property
is another one of the ways. MANUAL
at 5. Mr. Rugsaken
briefly mentioned that the price for a lot across the street was around $4,000.
He did not explain why $4,000 for the lot across the street helps show $7,000
for the subject property (two lots) is too much. It is not clear if that figure
was an asking price or a selling price. He did not provide a specific lot
number or the size of the lot. He did not even specify a time. In short, the
record contains no basis for any legitimate conclusion about the real value of
the subject property based on that attempted comparison with the price for a
lot across the street. See Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470-471 (holding that one
must identify the characteristics of the property under appeal and explain how
those characteristics compare to the characteristics of the purportedly
comparable properties, as well as explain how any differences between the
properties affect their relative market values-in-use). What the Rugsakens
presented about the lot across the street is simply not probative.
While both parties
focused a significant amount of their presentations on the Rugsakens’ 2008-2010
tax payments and what the payments were for, neither of them established how
that point is relevant to determining the proper valuation for the subject
property.
