Michael Dennis Haynes v. Lemmon (Stoddard)

December 21st, 2010

State Tax Commission of Missouri






v.) Appeal Number 10-88000












Decision of the Stoddard County Board of Equalization sustaining the assessment made by the Assessor is SUSTAINED.Complainant appeared pro se.Respondent appeared pro se.Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.


The Commission takes this appeal to determine the true value in money for the subject property on January 1, 2010.


Complainant appeals the decision of the Stoddard County Board of Equalization, which sustained the valuation of the subject property.The Assessor valued the property as a vacant lot only, as residential property.Complainant contends the subject property consists of a lot and a mobile home, proposed a value of $39,600, assessed value of $7,524.A hearing was conducted on December 2, 2010, at the Stoddard County Courthouse, Bloomfield, Missouri.

The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, enters the following Decision and Order.

Complainant’s Evidence

Complainant testified in his own behalf and offered into evidence:




Property Record Card for the Subject Property


Explanation of Contents of his Evidence Folder


Letter to Senior HO Tichenor from Taxpayer


List of Taxes paid on Subject Property by Year


2008 Assessment List Supplementary


Fax to Assessor from Randy Turley


2000 Assessment Inquiry




Affidavit of Robin Hall


Complainant purchased the subject real estate under a collector’s deed in 2006.He testified that he assumed he purchased the mobile home located on the property based upon the amount he paid at the tax sale.The property taxes were owed by “Janie Gromer” who owned the lot and lived in a mobile home on the lot.Sometime in 2010, the mobile home was removed from the property by another party from whom the prior lot owner purchased the mobile home.

Complainant requested the Hearing Officer take judicial notice of Sections 137.115 and 700.111, RSMo involving the conversion of mobile homes from personal property to real property.

Respondent’s Evidence

Respondent testified in his own behalf and offered the following Exhibits, which were received into evidence.






File Note: 8/13/2008 – Taxpayer wanted to be assessed for land only and Janie Gromer to be assessed for mobile home


Letter dated 3-22-08 to Janie Gromer from Mike Haynes


2008 Property List


2009 Property List


The Assessor testified that he had the mobile home assessed as residential property prior to the tax sale until 2008.In 2008, at the request of the Complainant, he assessed the property as personal property.The letter of March 22, 2008, from Complainant to Jane Gromer states (1) there is confusion as to who owns the mobile home and that (2) Janie Gromer will pay property taxes.The 2008 and 2009 property lists of Jamie Gromer include the mobile home.


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

2.The subject property is located at 606 W Fordyce Street, Bernie, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 29-2.0-004-001-006-002.The Assessor valued the property as a vacant lot.

3.A mobile home was on the property in 2006 and remained on the property until sometime in 2010.

4.Complainant obtained title to the subject property (land) by Collector’s Deed.

5.No title or proof of ownership was presented as to the mobile home and the mobile home is no longer on the lot.



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]

Presumption 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]The evidence presented was not sufficient to rebut the presumption of correct assessment and establish that the value of the property as of January 1, 2009, was to be based upon the land and mobile home.

Valuation of Complainant’s Property

The value of the property owned by Complainant for tax year 2010 is either the value placed on it by the Assessor for the land, or the value for the land and the mobile home as proposed by the Complainant.The Complainant did not contest the true value or appraised value set by the Assessor and sustained by the Board for the land.Complainant’s only argument is that he should be assessed for the land and mobile home.

The Assessor assessed the mobile home and land as residential property prior to the purchase by the Complainant.A mobile home actually used as a dwelling unit is assessed as residential real property for the purpose of taxation.[4]In 2008 and 2009, the Assessor classified the mobile home as personal property and placed it on the assessment list of Janie Gromer.In 2010, the mobile home was removed from the lot presumably by the company from who Janie Gromer purchased the mobile home.

Complainant failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence that he is the owner of the mobile home and therefore failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence that the Assessor did not value the property correctly.


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

A party 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.Said application mailed to the State Tax Commission of Missouri, P.O. Box 146, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146, 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. [5]

The Collector of Stoddard 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 December 21, 2010.






Maureen Monaghan

Hearing Officer




Certificate of Service


I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed postage prepaid this 21stday of December, 2010, to:Michael Haynes, 319 Old Aurora Road, Verona, MO 65769, Complainant; Briney Welborn, Prosecuting Attorney, P.O. Box 620, Bloomfield, MO 63825, Attorney for Respondent; Jody Lemmon, Assessor, P.O. Box 307, Bloomfield, MO 63825; James Hendley, Clerk, P.O. Box 110, Bloomfield, MO63825; Carla Moore, Treasurer and Ex Officio Collector; P.O. Box 80, Bloomfield, MO63825.




Barbara Heller

Legal Coordinator





[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 137.115.6 RSMo.


[5] Section 138.432, RSMo.