Ginsberg-Mellman, et al. v. Muehlheausler (SLCO)

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

GINSBERG-MELLMAN,)Appeal(s) Number 07-10391

BIG BEND FLORA LLC,)Appeal(s) Number 07-10392

6605 KINGSBURY LLC,)Appeal(s) Number 07-10427

DOMINICK & KATICA ANIC,)Appeal(s) Number 07-10429

CLAYTON SQUARE LLC,)Appeal(s) Number 07-12334 and 07-12335

WILLIAM & DOROTHY FIRESTONE, )Appeal(s) Number 07-12348

DUBMAN REALTY LLC,)Appeal(s) Number 07-12350

BARRON INVESTMENT, )Appeal(s) Number 07-13550 thru 07-13554

BC PROPERTIES,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13556

COLLEEN COOK, )Appeal(s) Number 07-13557

EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATION,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13558

ROBERT & DONNA HEISLER,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13563

WOODCHASE APARTMENTS,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13571

VESCOVO TOWNHOUSES LLC,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13575

UNIVERSITY COURTS LP,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13576

S. HAMPTON APTS.)Appeal(s) Number 07-13577

S. HAMPTON APTS.,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13579 thru 07-13581

WALTER SIEGERIST, )Appeal(s) Number 07-13582

JAMES SHEPHERD,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13583

JAMES ROBERTS,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13584 thru 07-13587

OAK VIEW LYNDOVER APTS.,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13588 thru 07-13591

OAK TOWER PARTNERSHIP,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13592

)

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 applies the prior assessed value 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%.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 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 21-25, 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 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 Assessor inspected the properties from May 21 to May 25, 2007, and a notice of the inspection was provided.The notice informed the property owner that the property was inspected due to an increase of at least 15% in the assessed value.The notice also informed the property owner 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 21-25, 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 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 valuation proposed by the Complainant which is 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 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