Armstrong-Maison DeVille, et al. v. Muehlheausler (SLCO)

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

ARMSTRONG-MAISON DE VILLE,)Appeal No.07-11409

ARMSTRONG-MAISON DE VILLE,)Appeal No.07-11411 thru 07-11412

COURTYARD, LCC,)Appeal No.07-11414 thru 07-11418

PAGE POINTE, LLC,)Appeal No.07-11420

WYNCREST HOLDINGS, INC.,)Appeal No.07-11425

SIMS LP,)Appeal No.07-11426

YAR & KAMELA MOHABBAT,)Appeal No.07-11429

HEATHER RIDGE APARTMENTS,)Appeal No.07-11432

THOMAS F. MALONEY,)Appeal No.07-11434

ROTHSCHILD PROPERTIES SOULARD, )Appeal No.07-11435

ROTHSCHILD DEVELOPMENT, LLC,)Appeal No.07-11436

ROTHSCHILD PROPERTIES SOULARD, )Appeal No.07-11437 thru 07-11438

THOMAS F. MALONEY,)Appeal No.07-11439 thru 07-11440

WYNCREST HOLDINGS, INC,)Appeal No.07-11441

PEACH APARTMENTS, LLC,)Appeal No.07-11442

402 S. BRENTWOOD, LLC,)Appeal No.07-11443

ROTHSCHILD PROPERTIES WEST END,)Appeal No.07-11444

STILL WATERS INVESTMENTS, LLC,)Appeal No.07-11445

SUBURBAN PARTNERS,)Appeal No.07-11446

STANFORD COURT APT, LLC,)Appeal No.07-11447 thru 07-11452

SUNQUAD CORPORATION,)Appeal No.07-11453

REFLECTION APARTMENTS,)Appeal No.07-11454

JAZ LIMITED CO.,)Appeal No.07-11455

PINEHURST APARTMENT COMPLEX,)Appeal No.07-11456

VILLA APARTMENTS, LLC,)Appeal No.07-11457

VORHOF-DUENKE PROPERTY, III)Appeal No.07-11458 thru 07-11459

VORHOF-DUENKE PROPERTY III,)Appeal No.07-11461 thru 07-11463

WATERFORD APARTMENTS,)Appeal No.07-12772

)

Complainants,)

)

v.)

)

PHILIP MUEHLHEAUSLER, ASSESSOR,)

ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent)

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

 

Decisions of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization are SET ASIDE.The Commission applies the prior assessed values as requested by the Complainant to the 2007 – 08 assessment cycle. Complainants filed Complaints for Review of Assessment based upon Sections 137.115(10) and (11), RSMo and St. Louis County Ordinance 501.250.The Respondent, upon order of the State Tax Commission, filed documents to establish their compliance with the provisions of Notice and Inspection when the assessed valuation increased by more than 15%.The Complainant filed a Motion for Decision and the Respondent filed his response on

March 24, 2009.

ISSUE

The Commission takes these appeals to determine the true value in money to be set for the 2007 – 08 assessment cycle under the provisions of Sections 137.115 and 138.060, RSMo.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.                  The subject properties are:

 

 

2.The 2007 assessed valuations of the subject properties increased by more than 15% since the 2006 assessment.

 

3.The properties are residential properties.

4.The properties were inspected from May 22-29, 2007.

5.A written notice of the inspection was provided.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

Jurisdiction

Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization.The Commission has jurisdiction to hear these appeals and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious.Article X, section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, RSMo.

Grounds for Appeal.

The properties under appeal are subclass (1) property (residential) under Section 4(b), Article X, Mo. Constitution.The Complainants stated on the Complaints for Review of Assessment that the Assessor failed to comply with Sections 137.115.10 and 137.115.11 and St. Louis County Ordinance 501.250.

Section 137.115.10, RSMo – Requirement of Physical Inspection

Section 137.115.10, RSMo, 2006 Cum. Supp. (A.L. 2002 H.B. 1150, et al) establishes that: “Before the assessor may increase the assessed valuation of any parcel of subclass (1) real property by more than fifteen percent since the last assessment, excluding increases due to new construction or improvements, the assessor shall conduct a physical inspection of such property.”

Section 137.115.11, RSMo – Notice Regarding Physical Inspection

Section 137.115.11, RSMo, 2006 Cum. Supp. (A.L. 2002 H.B. 1150, et al) requires in those instances where a physical inspection is required under Section 137.115.10 (more than 15% increase in residential assessed value since last assessment), the assessor is required to (1) notify the property owner in writing of the fact of the physical inspection being required, and (2) provide the owner with clear written notice of the owner’s rights relating to the physical inspection.The owner shall have no less than thirty days to notify the assessor of a request for an interior physical inspection.

Section 138.060, RSMo – Assessor’s Burden of Proof on Physical Inspection

Section 138.060, RSMo, 2006 Cum. Supp. (A.L. 2002 H.B. 1150, et al) provides in relevant part, that in St. Louis County, “… in the event a physical inspection of the subject property is required by subsection 10 of Section 137.115, RSMo, the assessor shall have the burden to establish the manner in which the physical inspection was performed and shall have the burden to prove that the physical inspection was performed in accordance with Section 137.115, RSMo.….”

The Assessor inspected the properties from May 22 to May 29, 2007, and a notice of the inspection was provided.The notice informed the property owners that the property was inspected due to an increase of at least 15% in the assessed value.The notice also informed the property owners that they could request an additional inspection within thirty days.

The Commission finds that the notice did not comply with Section 137.115.11, RSMo in that the Complainants were not given at least thirty days to request an interior inspection.

Section 137.115.11, RSMo, 2006 Cum. Supp. (A.L. 2002 H.B. 1150, et al) provides that the owner shall have no less than thirty days to notify the assessor of a request for an interior physical inspection.The purpose of the inspection is to insure the Assessor has the correct valuation in the assessment book.The Assessor’s power to change a valuation ceases after delivery of the book to the county’s governing body.Wymore v. Markway , 89 S.W.2d 9 (Mo. 1935). Section 137.375, RSMo, provides that the assessor shall make out and return to the county commission the assessment books, on or before the fifteenth day of May in every year, unless the time is extended to May 31^st as provided in Section 137.335, RSMo.

The Complainants received notice of the rights related to the inspection from May 22-29, 2007, including a right to request an inspection and thirty days in which to exercise that right.The Assessor must turn over the assessment books, if the deadline is extended, by May 31.Therefore, the Complainants were not provided at least thirty days to request an inspection.

ORDER

The Respondent failed to meet his burden that he met the requirements of Section 137.115, RSMo.The assessed valuations by the Board of Equalization forSt. LouisCountyfor subject properties are SET ASIDE.The assessed values for the properties for tax years 2007 and 2008 are set at the valuation proposed by the Complainants which are the 2006 assessed valuations:

 

 

Judicial review of this Order may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.432 and 536.100 to 536.140, RSMo within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service for this Decision.

If judicial review of this decision is made, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with these appeals shall be held pending the final decision of the courts.If no judicial review is made within thirty (30) days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector of St. Louis County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall disburse the protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accord with the decision on the underlying assessment in these appeals.

If any or all protested taxes have been disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031(8), RSMo, Complainants may apply to the circuit court having jurisdiction of the cause for disposition of the protested taxes held by the taxing authority.

Any Finding of Fact which is a Conclusion of Law or Decision shall be so deemed.Any Decision which is a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law shall be so deemed.

SO ORDERED April 21, 2009

 

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

 

 

_____________________________________

Bruce E. Davis, Chairman

 

 

_____________________________________

Jennifer Tidwell, Commissioner

 

 

_____________________________________

Charles Nordwald, Commissioner

 

 

 

 

 

Certificate of Service

 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 21^stday of April, 2009, to:James Gamble, 8909 Ladue Road, St. Louis, MO 63124, Attorney for Complainants; Michael Shuman, Associate County Counselor, Attorney for Respondent, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105; Philip Muehlheausler, Assessor, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105; John Friganza, Collector, County Government Center, 41 South Central Avenue, Clayton, MO 63105.

 

 

___________________________

Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator