Comparable G2 sold in December 2003 for
$682,000; its home is similar in effective age and
quality; however, its lot is smaller, its landscaping
inferior, and the home smaller with inferior amenit-
ies: Gentzkow adjusted it upward $84,300 for a
value of $766,300. Comparable G3 sold in May
2003 for $559,100; it is similar in landscaping and
home quality; however, its lot is smaller, and the
home has an older effective age and is smaller with
inferior amenities: Gentzkow adjusted it upward
$148,075 for a value of $707,175. Weighing the
values of the three adjusted comparable sales and
comparing them to taxpayer's property, Gentzkow
valued taxpayer's property at $750,000.
FN12. By amenities, the court means the
size of the garage and the number of bed-
rooms, bathrooms, and fireplaces, etc.
The county's appraiser, Barbara Miller, used
four comparable sales in her appraisal of taxpayer's
property. Comparable M2 is located in Montclair,
but the other three are located in a relatively similar
neighborhood across the **61 highway that abuts
Montclair and has generally larger homes. Compar-
able M1 sold in October 2002 for $1,100,000; its
home is similar in effective age and quality;
however, its lot is larger, its landscaping inferior,
and its home is smaller with inferior amenities:
Miller adjusted it upward $181,200 for a value of
$1,281,200. Comparable M2 sold in January 2002
for $995,000; its home is similar in effective age;
however, its lot is larger, its landscaping inferior,
and its home superior in quality but inferior in size
and amenities: Miller adjusted it upward $227,980
for a value of $1,222,980. Comparable M3 sold in
July 2003 for $867,500; its lot is much larger, its
landscaping inferior, and its home inferior in size
and amenities, and much inferior in effective age
and quality: Miller adjusted it upward $204,650 for
a value of $1,072,150. Comparable M4 sold in
January 2002 for $810,000; its home is similar in
effective age and amenities; however, its lot is lar-
ger, its landscaping much inferior, and its home
much inferior in quality and size: Miller adjusted it
upward $242,840 for a value of $1,052,840. Weigh-
ing the values of the four adjusted comparable sales
and comparing them to taxpayer's property, Miller
valued taxpayer's property at $1,200,000.
*6 At trial, Gentzkow criticized Miller's ap-
praisal on several grounds. He contended that
Miller was ill trained and inexperienced, that she
made several mistakes, and that her numbers were
misleading insofar as they were accurate. Gentzkow
testified that Miller failed to make necessary adjust-
ments for things such as functional obsolescence
and the unique nature of taxpayer's property.
Gentzkow stated that the nearby neighborhood in
which most of Miller's comparable sales were loc-
ated was nicer and contained larger, estate style
homes. Gentzkow also noted that two of Miller's
comparable sales sold for less their original asking
prices (which were close to values Miller placed on
them). Additionally, Gentzkow questioned how
comparable Miller's comparable sales were, given
that she made as many adjustments as she did; in-
deed, Gentzkow testified that Miller made so many
adjustments so as to render her appraisal in viola-
tion of accepted professional appraisal standards.
To support his own valuation, Gentzkow pointed to
a May 2002 appraisal he had done on taxpayer's
property for insurance purposes; at **62 that time,
he valued the property at $700,000. Gentzkow also
pointed to another insurance appraisal by another
appraiser in July 2004; that appraisal valued the
property at $710,000.
On the other hand, Miller found several faults
in Gentzkow's appraisal. She testified that she con-
ducted in depth visits of each of her comparable
sales and that she spoke with the owners; she also
testified that she did the same for Gentzkow's com-
parable sales. In contrast, Gentzkow admitted that
he had only taken pictures of his comparable sales.
Miller stated that Gentzkow failed to adjust his
comparable sales properly, given their low quality
and the fact that they were each remodeled, some
significantly, immediately after their sales. Miller
also pointed out that Gentzkow, too, had used com-
Page 6
2006 WL 1375113, 19 Or. Tax 51
(Cite as: 2006 WL 1375113 (Or.Tax Regular Div.), 19 Or. Tax 51)
© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.