Naples Milfield Venture, et al. (2007 Summary Judgment) v. Zimmerman (SLCO)

NAPLES MILFIELD VENTURE	)	Appeal No. 07-10796
ENVIROTECH PUMPSYSTEMS	)	07-10804
ST LOUIS CO WATER	)	07-10864
LINCOLN INVESTMENTS	)	07-10909
RONNIES PLAZA	)	07-10964
SOUTHWEST BANK	)	07-10978
JOHNNY INVESTMENT GEM	)	07-10987
KINGS LANDING LLC	)	07-11022
FINANCING REPORT	)	07-11108
HYDE KEY PROPERTIES	)	07-11164
SINCLAIR BUICK-GMC TRUCK	)	07-11314
SOUTHTOWN INVESTMENTS	)	07-11316
HMH LLC	)	07-11329
CLARKSON CLAYTON CEN ASSOC	)	08-10552
LAMP & LATERN ASSOC	)	08-10553
A&O INVESTMENTS LTD	)	08-10554
A&O INVESTMENTS LTD	)	08-10555
NCF LLC	)	08-10556
BRADFORD HILLS ASSOCIATES	)	08-10557
A&O INVESTMENTS LTD	)	08-10558
CHESTERFIELD VILLAGE LODGING	)	08-10559
STL AIRPORT LODGING	)	08-10560
SHS HANLEY LODGING LLC	)	08-10561
MISSOURI RIVER LODGING	)	08-10562
TENHOLDER TRAVEL	)	08-10563
ZADA, LLC	)	08-10566
RADIANT PRODUCTS COMPANY	)	08-10568
JCP PROPERTIES	)	08-10569
ADVENTURE PROPERTIES	)	08-10570
PLANTATION PROPERTIES II	)	08-10571
ALLIED SYSTEMS LTD	)	08-10572
CRP2 MID SOUTH INDUSTRIAL	)	08-10579
CRP2 MID SOUTH INDUSTRIAL	)	08-10580
PELAGIC LLC	)	08-10582

 

DECISION AND ORDER

HOLDING

St. Louis County Board of Equalization’s assessment is SET ASIDE.Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.

True value in money and assessment ratio for the subject property for tax year(s):

Appeal Number	True Value	Assessment Ratio	Assessed Value 2007	Assessed Value 2008
07-10796	$4,721,600.00	29.4	$1,388,150.00	$1,388,150.00
07-10804	$700,700.00	29.4	$206,010.00	$206,010.00
07-10864	$2,756,800.00	29.4	$810,500.00	$810,500.00
07-10909	$1,432,500.00	29.4	$421,160.00	$421,160.00
07-10964	$13,240,500.00	29.4	$3,892,710.00	$3,892,710.00
07-10978	$795,100.00	29.4	$233,760.00	$233,760.00
07-10987	$1,709,000.00	29.4	$502,450.00	$502,450.00
07-11022	$2,419,100.00	29.4	$711,220.00	$711,220.00
07-11108	$2,057,400.00	29.4	$604,880.00	$604,880.00
07-11164	$335,200.00	29.4	$98,550.00	$98,550.00
07-11314	$4,125,000.00	29.4	$1,212,750.00	$1,212,750.00
07-11316	$6,000,000.00	29.4	$1,764,000.00	$1,764,000.00
07-11329	$147,000,000.00	29.4	$43,218,000.00	$43,218,000.00
08-10552	$10,630,900.00	29.4		$3,125,480.00
08-10553	$12,412,800.00	29.4		$3,649,360.00
08-10554	$1,257,400.00	29.4		$369,680.00
08-10555	$1,257,400.00	29.4		$369,680.00
08-10556	$5,784,000.00	29.4		$1,700,500.00
08-10557	$8,500,000.00	29.4		$2,499,000.00
08-10558	$877,800.00	29.4		$258,070.00
08-10559	$4,994,000.00	29.4		$1,468,240.00
08-10560	$3,910,000.00	29.4		$1,149,540.00
08-10561	$4,672,500.00	29.4		$1,373,720.00
08-10562	$5,811,800.00	29.4		$1,708,670.00
08-10563	$4,759,300.00	29.4		$1,399,230.00
08-10566	$5,500,000.00	29.4		$1,617,000.00
08-10568	$4,794,600.00	29.4		$1,409,610.00
08-10569	$1,988,500.00	29.4		$584,620.00
08-10570	$5,217,200.00	29.4		$1,533,860.00
08-10571	$4,175,100.00	29.4		$1,227,480.00
08-10572	$1,900,000.00	29.4		$558,600.00
08-10579	$3,100,000.00	29.4		$911,400.00
08-10580	$4,332,000.00	29.4		$1,273,610.00
08-10582	$2,187,500.00	29.4		$643,130.00

 

Complainants appeared by counsel, Robert Droney.Respondent appeared by Attorney Edward Corrigan.

Case heard and decided by Hearing Officer Maureen Monaghan.

ISSUE

Complainants appeal, on the grounds of overvaluation and discrimination, the decision of the County Board of Equalization.Having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record, the Hearing Officer finds that the Complainants failed to present substantial and persuasive evidence as to overvaluation; Complainants presented substantial and persuasive evidence as to discrimination.The following Decision and Order is entered.

FINDINGS OF FACT

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

2.Schedule and Procedure.On December 23, 2013, Complainants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.Respondent did not file a Response.On February 4, 2014, Hearing Officer granted the Motion for Summary Judgment and ordered that the Respondent show cause as to why the assessed valuations as determined by the Board of Equalization should not be set aside.

3.Subject Property.The subject properties are identified as follows:

Appeal Number	Parcel Number	Address
07-10796	17V510016	18081 Chesterfield Airport Rd, Chesterfield, MO
07-10804	25L610159	8640 Pardee Lane, St. Louis, MO
07-10864	28N640070	12710 Weber Hill Rd, St. Louis, MO
07-10909	22M421142	10749 Manchester Rd, St. Louis, MO
07-10964	27L320773	5320 Lindbergh Blvd, St. Louis, MO
07-10978	22T530263	3095 Clarkson Rd, Chesterfield, MO
07-10987	09E110015	1795 Dunn Rd, Florissant, MO
07-11022	17O342573	624 N New Ballas Rd, Creve Coeur, MO
07-11108	13J410202	4657 World Parkway Cir, Berkeley, MO
07-11164	22J511291	3604 S. Big Bend, St. Louis, MO
07-11314	28K440280	S. Lindbergh Blvd, St. Louis, MO
07-11316	29J440754	7127 S Lindbergh Blvd, St. Louis, MO
07-11329	11P510012	777 Casino Center Drive, Maryland Hts, MO
08-10552	22T420441	1312 Clarkson Clayton Center, St. Louis, MO
08-10553	20Q130295	157 Lamp & Lantern Village, St. Louis, MO
08-10554	10G410546	10722 W Florissant Ave, St. Louis, MO
08-10555	10G410555	10710 W Florissant Ave, St. Louis, MO
08-10556	10H620445	10803 W Florissant, St. Louis, MO
08-10557	23T531144	15828 Manchester Rd, St. Louis, MO
08-10558	23T531090	15836 Manchester Rd, Ballwin, MO
08-10559	18S331381	1065 E. Chesterfield Pky, Chesterfield, MO
08-10560	11O520382	3099 S Rider Trail, Bridgeton, MO
08-10561	20K320911	1231 Strassner Dr, St. Louis, MO
08-10562	11O520294	3101 S Rider Trail, Earth City, MO
08-10563	29J420460	122 South County Center Way, St. Louis, MO
08-10566	17U520115	17377 Chesterfield Airport Rd, Chesterfield, Mo
08-10568	25O410088	3433 Tree Court Industrial, St. Louis, MO
08-10569	17U240066	17417 Chesterfield Airport Rd, Chesterfield, MO
08-10570	17U610139	17371 N Outer 40 Rd, Chesterfield, MO
08-10571	23T431275	16018 Manchester Rd, Ellisville, MO
08-10572	09K140015	9050 Pershall Rd, Hazelwood, MO
08-10579	15M420497	2130 Kratky Rd, St. Louis, MO
08-10580	15M420486	10976 N Warson Rd, St. Louis, MO
08-10582	20K330729	1002 Hanley Industrial Ct, St. Louis, MO

 4.Assessment.

Appeal Number	Assessor’s True Value	Assessor’s Assessed Value	Board of Equalization’s True Value	Board of Equalization’s Assessed Value
07-10796	$4,721,600.00	$1,510,910.00	$4,721,600.00	$1,510,910.00
07-10804	$700,700.00	$224,220.00	$700,700.00	$224,220.00
07-10864	$2,756,800.00	$882,180.00	$2,756,800.00	$882,180.00
07-10909	$1,432,500.00	$458,400.00	$1,432,500.00	$458,400.00
07-10964	$13,240,500.00	$4,236,960.00	$13,240,500.00	$4,236,960.00
07-10978	$795,100.00	$254,430.00	$795,100.00	$254,430.00
07-10987	$1,709,000.00	$546,880.00	$1,709,000.00	$546,880.00
07-11022	$2,419,100.00	$774,110.00	$2,419,100.00	$774,110.00
07-11108	$2,057,400.00	$658,370.00	$2,057,400.00	$658,370.00
07-11164	$426,900.00	$136,608.00	$335,200.00	$107,260.00
07-11314	$4,752,500.00	$1,520,800.00	$4,125,000.00	$1,320,000.00
07-11316	$6,716,600.00	$2,149,312.00	$6,000,000.00	$1,920,000.00
07-11329	$150,516,800.00	$48,165,376.00	$147,000,000.00	$47,040,000.00
08-10552	$10,630,900.00	$3,401,890.00	$10,630,900.00	$3,401,890.00
08-10553	$12,412,800.00	$3,972,100.00	$12,412,800.00	$3,972,100.00
08-10554	$1,257,400.00	$402,370.00	$1,257,400.00	$402,370.00
08-10555	$1,257,400.00	$402,370.00	$1,257,400.00	$402,370.00
08-10556	$5,784,000.00	$1,850,880.00	$5,784,000.00	$1,850,880.00
08-10557	$8,500,000.00	$2,720,000.00	$8,500,000.00	$2,720,000.00
08-10558	$877,800.00	$280,900.00	$877,800.00	$280,900.00
08-10559	$4,994,000.00	$1,598,080.00	$4,994,000.00	$1,598,080.00
08-10560	$4,390,500.00	$1,404,960.00	$3,910,000.00	$1,251,200.00
08-10561	$4,672,500.00	$1,495,200.00	$4,672,500.00	$1,495,200.00
08-10562	$5,811,800.00	$1,859,776.00	$5,811,800.00	$1,859,780.00
08-10563	$4,759,300.00	$1,522,980.00	$4,759,300.00	$1,522,980.00
08-10566	$6,094,600.00	$1,950,272.00	$5,500,000.00	$1,760,000.00
08-10568	$4,794,600.00	$1,534,270.00	$4,794,600.00	$1,534,270.00
08-10569	$1,988,500.00	$636,320.00	$1,988,500.00	$636,320.00
08-10570	$5,217,200.00	$1,669,500.00	$5,217,200.00	$1,669,500.00
08-10571	$4,175,100.00	$1,336,030.00	$4,175,100.00	$1,336,030.00
08-10572	$2,289,100.00	$732,512.00	$1,900,000.00	$608,000.00
08-10579	$3,957,600.00	$1,266,432.00	$3,100,000.00	$992,000.00
08-10580	$4,332,000.00	$1,386,240.00	$4,332,000.00	$1,386,240.00
08-10582	$2,507,900.00	$802,528.00	$2,187,500.00	$700,000.00

 

5.Complainant’s Evidence.Complainant filed with the Commission the following documents:

Exhibit A	Properties with assessment differential greater than 10%
Exhibit B	Properties by Property Type
Exhibit C	Properties by School District
Exhibit D	Findings of Value by the Board of Equalization
Exhibit E	Finding of the Median Assessment Ratio for Commercial Properties in St. Louis County for 2007 and 2008
Exhibit F	Property Record Cards
Exhibit G	Ratio Study of 2007 Commercial Assessments, Patrick O’Connor
Exhibit H	Property Record Cards
Exhibit I	St. Louis County 2012 Rate Book

 

6.Median Level of Assessment.The State Tax Commission previously found that the median level of assessment for commercial property in St. Louis County in 2007 was 29.4%.The previous decision is incorporated by reference.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION

Jurisdiction

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]

Basis of Assessment

The Constitution mandates that real property and tangible personal property be assessed at its value or such percentage of its value as may be fixed by law for each class and for each subclass.[2]The constitutional mandate is to find the true value in money for the property under appeal. By statute real and tangible personal property is assessed at set percentages of true value in money.[3]

Presumption In Appeals

There is a presumption of validity, good faith and correctness of assessment by the County Board of Equalization.[4]

Summary Judgment

Supreme Court Rule 74.04 provides that the claimant may file a Motion for Summary Judgment with a Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts with all discovery, exhibits and/or affidavits attached along with a Legal Memorandum.Complainants’ filings on December 23, 2013, complied with Supreme Court Rule 74.04.

Rule 74.04 provides that a Respondent shall serve a response within 30 days after a Motion for Summary Judgment is served.The Respondent is required to admit or deny each factual statement and each denial shall be supported with references to discovery, exhibits, or affidavits demonstrating that there are actual issues of fact.

The Complainants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on December 23, 2013.Respondent did not file a response.Since no response was filed the motion must be granted.[5]Hearing Officer granted the Motion on February 4, 2014.On March 13, 2014, Respondent filed a Response to the Hearing Officer’s granting of the Motion.Complainant replied on March 28, 2014.A final order on that issue was granted.All Motions and Orders on the Summary Judgment are incorporated by reference.

Valuation

Section 137.115 of the Missouri Revised Statutes requires that property be assessed based upon its true value in money, which is defined as the price a property would bring when offered for sale by one willing or desirous to sell and purchased by one who is desiring to purchase but who is not compelled to do so.[6]The value used for the true value in money of a subject property is the fair market value of the subject property on the valuation date.[7]

There is a presumption of validity, good faith, and correctness by the County Board of Equalization.[8] The case law and the Commission’s decisions have repeatedly held the presumption of a correct assessment may only be rebutted when substantial and persuasive evidence is presented to establish that Board’s valuation is erroneous.[9] In the absence of such evidence, the presumptions are assumed to be correct.

The determination of true value is necessary for both overvaluation and discrimination claims.Complainants submitted Exhibits D[10], F and H as to the true value in money of the Complainants’ properties.The Supreme Court[11] holds that the Commission cannot compel a taxpayer to present evidence in a particular form.Therefore, Complainants are entitled to present evidence of the true value in money of their respective properties in the form of the Board of Equalization decisions. The hearing officer’s decision must be based upon its inquiry into relevant matters and evidence presented in the case or solely upon the evidence presented in the case.”

The Complainants’ exhibits establish true value in money of the subject properties.Respondent failed to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment.Failure to respond to a motion for summary judgment with specific facts showing genuine material issues results in admission of the facts alleged[12].The Complainants’ exhibits do not establish that the property was overvalued.The Complainants’ exhibits do satisfy the first prong of the test to prove discrimination – that is establish the true value of the property.

Discrimination

The purpose of the equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment is to secure every person within the state’s jurisdiction against discrimination whether it be through intentional violations of the statute or by improper execution of a statute.If a jurisdiction cannot both secure the standard of true value and uniformly and equitably assess property for taxing purposes, “the latter requirement is to be preferred as just and ultimate purpose of law.” A taxpayer whose property is taxed differently from other property within a jurisdiction has the right to have his assessment reduced to the percentage of that value at which the others are taxed.[13]

In order to obtain a reduction in assessed value based upon discrimination, the Complainant must (1) prove the true value in money of their property on January 1, 2007; and (2) show an intentional plan of discrimination by the assessing officials resulting in an assessment of that property at a greater percentage of value than other property, generally, within the same class within the same taxing jurisdiction or show that the level of an assessment is so grossly excessive as to be inconsistent with an honest exercise of judgment. [14]

The first prong of the test to prove discrimination, determining true value of the property, has been addressed.The next step is to review the assessment of the subject property and properties within the same class.

The median level of assessment for a particular class of real property and the actual assessment imposed on the property of the taxpayer alleging discrimination must be evaluated.[15] The median level of assessment is (a) determined by independently determining the market value of a representative sample of commercial properties within the County; (b) determining the assessed value placed on the property by the Assessor’s office for the relevant year; (c) dividing the assessed value by the market value to determine the level of assessment for each property in the sample; and (d) determining the mean and median of the results. The Hearing Officer, in a previous hearing, held that the median level of assessment for commercial properties in St. Louis County in 2007 was 29.4%. [16]

The following table sets forth the subject properties’ assessed values as determined by the Assessor using an assessment ratio of 32%, the assessed value using a median assessment ratio of 29.4% and the Board’s determination of true value, and the difference between the values.The Complainant has established that the assessment was more than a de minimus error in judgment on the part of the assessor.

Appeal Number	Assessor’s Assessed Value at 32%	Board of Equalization’sValue at Median Assessment Ratio	Difference
07-10796	$1,510,910.00	$1,388,150.00	$122,760.00
07-10804	$224,220.00	$206,010.00	$18,210.00
07-10864	$882,180.00	$810,500.00	$71,680.00
07-10909	$458,400.00	$421,160.00	$37,240.00
07-10964	$4,236,960.00	$3,892,710.00	$344,250.00
07-10978	$254,430.00	$233,760.00	$20,670.00
07-10987	$546,880.00	$502,450.00	$44,430.00
07-11022	$774,110.00	$711,220.00	$62,890.00
07-11108	$658,370.00	$604,880.00	$53,490.00
07-11164	$136,608.00	$98,550.00	$38,058.00
07-11314	$1,520,800.00	$1,212,750.00	$308,050.00
07-11316	$2,149,312.00	$1,764,000.00	$385,312.00
07-11329	$48,165,376.00	$43,218,000.00	$4,947,376.00
08-10552	$3,401,890.00	$3,125,480.00	$276,410.00
08-10553	$3,972,100.00	$3,649,360.00	$322,740.00
08-10554	$402,370.00	$369,680.00	$32,690.00
08-10555	$402,370.00	$369,680.00	$32,690.00
08-10556	$1,850,880.00	$1,700,500.00	$150,380.00
08-10557	$2,720,000.00	$2,499,000.00	$221,000.00
08-10558	$280,900.00	$258,070.00	$22,830.00
08-10559	$1,598,080.00	$1,468,240.00	$129,840.00
08-10560	$1,404,960.00	$1,149,540.00	$255,420.00
08-10561	$1,495,200.00	$1,373,720.00	$121,480.00
08-10562	$1,859,776.00	$1,708,670.00	$151,106.00
08-10563	$1,522,980.00	$1,399,230.00	$123,750.00
08-10566	$1,950,272.00	$1,617,000.00	$333,272.00
08-10568	$1,534,270.00	$1,409,610.00	$124,660.00
08-10569	$636,320.00	$584,620.00	$51,700.00
08-10570	$1,669,500.00	$1,533,860.00	$135,640.00
08-10571	$1,336,030.00	$1,227,480.00	$108,550.00
08-10572	$732,512.00	$558,600.00	$173,912.00
08-10579	$1,266,432.00	$911,400.00	$355,032.00
08-10580	$1,386,240.00	$1,273,610.00	$112,630.00
08-10582	$802,528.00	$643,130.00	$159,398.00

 

ORDER

The assessed valuation for the subject property as determined by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis County for the subject tax day is SET ASIDE.The assessed values for the subject properties are:

Appeal Number	Assessed Valuation 2007	Assessed Valuation 2008
07-10796	$1,388,150.00	$1,388,150.00
07-10804	$206,010.00	$206,010.00
07-10864	$810,500.00	$810,500.00
07-10909	$421,160.00	$421,160.00
07-10964	$3,892,710.00	$3,892,710.00
07-10978	$233,760.00	$233,760.00
07-10987	$502,450.00	$502,450.00
07-11022	$711,220.00	$711,220.00
07-11108	$604,880.00	$604,880.00
07-11164	$98,550.00	$98,550.00
07-11314	$1,212,750.00	$1,212,750.00
07-11316	$1,764,000.00	$1,764,000.00
07-11329	$43,218,000.00	$43,218,000.00
08-10552		$3,125,480.00
08-10553		$3,649,360.00
08-10554		$369,680.00
08-10555		$369,680.00
08-10556		$1,700,500.00
08-10557		$2,499,000.00
08-10558		$258,070.00
08-10559		$1,468,240.00
08-10560		$1,149,540.00
08-10561		$1,373,720.00
08-10562		$1,708,670.00
08-10563		$1,399,230.00
08-10566		$1,617,000.00
08-10568		$1,409,610.00
08-10569		$584,620.00
08-10570		$1,533,860.00
08-10571		$1,227,480.00
08-10572		$558,600.00
08-10579		$911,400.00
08-10580		$1,273,610.00
08-10582		$643,130.00

 

Application for Review

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 facts or law as grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.Said application must be in writing addressed 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 application for review is based will result in summary denial. [17]

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 April 9, 2014.

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI

Maureen Monaghan

Chief Counsel