Big Bend Apts., et al. v. Muehlheausler (SLCO)

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

BIG BEND APTS, LLC,)Appeal(s) Number 07-12344 thru 07-12345

BARON INVESTMENTS COMPANY,)Appeal(s) Number 07-12346

PHILIP H. BARRON,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13555

WESTGLEN VILLAGE,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13574

)

Complainants,)

)

v.)

)

PHILIP MUEHLHEAUSLER, ASSESSOR,)

ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI,)

)

Respondent)

 

DECISION AND ORDER

 

HOLDING

Decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization is SET ASIDE.The Commission finds the value proposed by the Complainant must be applied for the 2007 – 08 assessment cycle.

ISSUE

The Commission takes this appeal 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 property is:

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

3.      The property is residential property.

4.      There is no evidence of notice of increase or inspection.

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 this appeal 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 Complaint 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.….”

Complainants filed Complaints for Review of Assessment based upon Sections 137.115(10) and (11), RSMo and St. Louis County Ordinance 501.250.On October 2, 2008, the State Tax Commission ordered the Respondent to file exhibits establishing the manner in which the physical inspection of the properties were performed and establishing compliance with the provisions of Notice under Section 137.115 RSMo.The exhibits were to be filed on or before November 17, 2008.Respondent failed to file exhibits in compliance with the Order dated October 2, 2008.

There is no evidence that the Respondent providedthe property owner with (1) a notice that their valuations increased by more than 15% since the last valuation; (2) a notice that a physical inspection is required, and (3) a clear written notice of the owner’s rights relating to the physical inspection.

ORDER

The Respondent failed to meet their burden that they met the requirements of Section 137.115, RSMo.The assessed valuation by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis County for subject property is SET ASIDE.The assessed value for the property for tax years 2007 and 2008 is the valuation proposed by the Complainant which is the previous assessed valuation:

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 this appeal 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 this appeal.

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 January 14, 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 14^thday of January, 2009, to:Cathy Steele, 225 S. Meramec, Suite 511, Clayton, MO 63105, Attorney for Complainants; Paula Lemerman, 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