Leighton & Marjorie Zumbehl v. Shipman (St. Charles)

February 11th, 2010

State Tax Commission of Missouri






v.) Appeal No.09-32788











Decision of the St. Charles County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is AFFIRMED.True value in money for 2009 and 2010 is set at $148,160, residential assessed value of $28,150.Appeal dismissed by Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor.


The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2009.


Complainant appealed, on the grounds of overvaluation and discrimination, the decision of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.The Assessor determined an appraised value of $148,160, assessed value of $28,150, as residential property.Complainant did not propose a true value (market) or an assessed value in the Complaint for Review of Assessment.



1.Jurisdiction over this appeal is proper.Complainant timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decision of the St. Charles County Board of Equalization.

2.The subject property is located at 2999 Zumbehl Road, St. Charles, Missouri.The property is identified by map parcel number 6-005-S026-00-7.3.

3.Complainant, Leighton Zumbehl, appeared at the Prehearing Conference at

10:00 a.m., February 4, 2010.Under questioning by the Hearing Officer, Mr. Zumbehl did not provide an opinion of what a willing buyer and seller would have agreed to for the purchase price of his property as of January 1, 2009.Other information provided by Mr. Zumbehl provided no relevant information on the issues of Overvaluation or Discrimination.



The Commission has jurisdiction to hear this appeal and correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious.The hearing officer shall issue a decision and order affirming, modifying or reversing the determination of the board of equalization, and correcting any assessment which is unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary, or capricious.[1]

Presumptions In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the CountyBoardof Equalization.[2]The presumption of correct assessment is rebutted when the taxpayer presents substantial and persuasive evidence to establish that the Board’s valuation is erroneous and what the fair market value should have been placed on the property.[3]Information provided by Complainant at the prehearing conference established that no relevant evidence would be provided at an evidentiary hearing to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board.

Dismissal of Appeal

Mr. Zumbehl did not have an opinion of the fair market value of the property as of January 1, 2009.He indicated he had no relevant evidence to offer at an evidentiary hearing on either the issue of the fair market value of the property or discrimination.The information he shared regarding his level of income and living expenses do not provide any evidence upon which a valuation of the subject property can be made.No purpose would be served by setting the appeal for evidentiary hearing, as Complainants are not prepared to properly prosecute the appeal.


The appeal is dismissed and the assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Assessor and sustained by the Board of Equalization for County for the subject tax day is AFFIRMED.

The assessed value for the subject property for tax years 2009 and 2010 is set at $28,150.

Complainant may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service for this Decision.The application shall contain specific grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous and shall provide a specific opinion of the value of the subject property as of January 1, 2009, along with information as to how the value was determined and any supporting information to establish the fair market value of the property.Said application must be in writing addressed to the State Tax Commission of Missouri, P.O. Box 146, Jefferson City, MO65102-0146, and a copy of said application must be sent to each person at the address listed below in the certificate of service.

Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the appeal is based will result in summary denial. [4]

The Collector of St. Charles County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall continue to hold the disputed taxes pending a filing of an Application for Review, unless said taxes have been disbursed pursuant to a court order under the provisions of Section 139.031.8, RSMo.

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 February 11, 2010.





W. B. Tichenor, Senior Hearing Officer



Certificate of Service


I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid on this 11thday of February, 2010, to:Leighton Zumbehl, 2999 Zumbehl Road, St. Charles, MO 63301, Complainant; Charissa Mayes, Assistant County Counselor, 100 North Third Street, Room 216, St. Charles, MO 63301, Attorney for Respondent; Scott Shipman, Assessor, 201 North Second, Room 247, St. Charles, MO 63301-2870; Ruth Miller, Registrar, 201 North Second Street, Room 529, St. Charles, MO 63301; Michelle McBride, Collector, 201 North Second Street, Room 134, St. Charles, MO 63301.



Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator

Contact Information for State Tax Commission:

Missouri – State Tax Commission

P.O. Box 146

301 W. High Street, Room 840

Jefferson City, MO 65102


573-751-1341 FAX



[1] Article X, section 14, Mo. Const. of 1945; Sections 138.430, 138.431, 138.431.4, RSMo.


[2] Hermel, Inc. v. STC, 564 S.W.2d 888, 895 (Mo. banc 1978); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650, 656 (Mo. 1968); May Department Stores Co. v. STC, 308 S.W.2d 748, 759 (Mo. 1958).


[3] Hermel, supra; Cupples-Hesse Corporation v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959).


[4] Section 138.432, RSMo.