Westpark Apts., et al. v. Muehlheausler (SLCO)

State Tax Commission of Missouri

 

WESTPARK APTS,)Appeal(s) Number 07-10388 to 07-10389

LCM INVESTMENT,)Appeal(s) Number 07-10390

HARRY FREEMAN,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13559

HANSON BROTHERS,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13562

JM FREEMAN LLC,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13564 thru 07-13566

MANCRAFT MGMT,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13569

S.HAMPTON APTS.,)Appeal(s) Number 07-13578

)

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 assessed value proposed by the Complainant, 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 State Tax Commission ordered the Respondent to file documents to establish prima facie that they were in compliance with the statutes.

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 as follows:

Appeal Number	Complainant	Locator Number	Address of Property	2007 Assessor’s Value	2006 Value	Inspection Date
07-10388	Westpark Apts. LLC	15N240021	11501 Tivoli Ln., 63146	$4,156,600	$3,000,000	4/20/06
07-10389	Westpark Apts. LLC	15N240041	11400 Tivoli Ln., 63141	$9,211,100	$6,000,000	4/20/06
07-10390	LCM Investment	23U230224	16342 Centerfield Ct., 63040	$20,180,700	$17,900,000	4/18/06
07-13559	Harry Freeman	28P210253	681 Green Earth Dr., 63026	$5,047,900	$3,750,000	4/19/06
07-13562	Hanson Brothers	19J130522	765 Westwood Dr., 63105	$2,562,100	$1,966,900	5/3/06
07-13564	JM Freeman LLC	28P320286	1041 Green Arbor Dr., 63026	$1,376,500	$975,000	4/19/06
07-13565	JM Freeman LLC	28P320242	405 May Valley Ln., 63026	$3,212,200	$2,275,000	4/19/06
07-13566	JM Freeman LLC	28P320264	1092 Green Arbor Dr., 63026	$5,507,200	$3,900,000	4/19/06
07-13569	Mancraft Mgmt.	23S611005	218 Leslie Ln., 63021	$2,407,100	$1,505,900	4/18/06
07-13578	S. Hampton Apts.	23Q520820	206 Enchanted Pky., 63021	$8,901,500	$6,422,900	4/19/06

 

 

2.The properties were inspected in April and May, 2006.

3.A written notice of the inspection was left at the property.

4.The notice included that “St. Louis Co. ordinances allow a homeowner tochoose the type or types of home/property inspection he or she wishes to have.”

5.The notice stated that the purpose of the inspection was for six-year review.

6.The notices of April and May 2006 were the only exhibits filed by the Respondent pursuant to the Commission’s order that they file documents to establish prima facie that they were in compliance with the statutes.

 

7.There was no evidence that a written Change of Assessment Notice was sent to any of the Complainants.

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 a 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 the physical inspection requirement of Sections 137.115.10 and 137.115.11, RSMo.

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.”

St. Louis County Assessor’s Office, in complying with their assessment plan, inspects every residential parcel in the county at least one time in a six year period.This inspection is referred to as the “six-year review” inspection.St. Louis County conducted exterior inspections of the properties from April 18, 2006 to May 3, 2006, as part of the six-year review.Inspections occurring during April and May, 2006, are within a relevant time period of the valuation date of January 1, 2007.Further,St. LouisCountyis the largest assessment jurisdiction in the State ofMissouri.Over a quarter of a million residential parcels required inspection before the 2007 assessment could be completed.The purpose of Section 137.115, RSMo is to insure that the taxpayer’s property is inspected before an increase of over 15% may be finalized.An inspection occurring in April and May, 2006, fulfills the inspection purpose of the statute.

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 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.

There is no evidence that the Complainants received a written notice of Change of Assessment.

When Respondent inspected the properties in April and May, 2006, they provided the Complainants with a written notice that the inspection occurred and the notice included that the owner may request an additional exterior and/or interior property inspection.The Complainants were not notified that their property values increased by more than 15%.

The Respondent’s notice did state that that an additional inspection may be requested. However, a taxpayer receiving notice that an inspection occurred for the purpose of a six-year review and a taxpayer receiving notice that an inspection is necessary for an increase in their valuation over 15% would have different considerations when determining if they would request an additional exterior and/or interior inspection.By failing to notify the property owners that an inspection is required prior to an increase in their valuation and their rights regarding physical inspections, the taxpayer is deprived of due process.

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 failed to meet his burden that he complied with the requirements of Section 137.115, RSMo.

The assessed valuations by the Board of Equalization for St. Louis County for subject properties are SET ASIDE.The assessed value for the properties for tax years 2007 and 2008 is as follows:

 

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