Clayton Square, et al. v. Muehlheausler (SLCO)

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

CLAYTON SQUARE, LLC,)Appeal(s) Number 07-12333

DAVID REDEVLOPMENT CORP,)Appeal(s) Number 07-12338

LAWRENCE BEHYMER,)Appeal(s) Number 07-12340

DUNNWOOD ACRES,)Appeal(s) Number 07-12349

MANCRAFT MGMT.,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13219 and 07-13220

HANSON BROTHERS,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13561

MANCRAFT MGMT.,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13570

)

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 Complainant’s proposed value which is the prior assessment value must be applied for 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%.Respondent filed Exhibits on or about December 1, 2008.

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 properties are residential properties.

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

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.….”

The Respondent filed copies of the property record card with the State Tax Commission.There is no evidence that the Respondent inspected the property prior to increasing the valuation by more than 15% since the last valuation.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 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 values proposed by the Complainant, the previous 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 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 December 23, 2008.

 

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 23^rdday of December, 2008, 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