Breckenridge Hotels Corp. v. Leachman, 60298

• Decision Date: 12 September 1978
• Docket Number: No. 60298,60298
• Parties: BRECKENRIDGE HOTELS CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. George C. LEACHMAN et al., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 251

571 S.W.2d 251

BRECKENRIDGE HOTELS CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. George C. LEACHMAN et al., Respondents.

No. 60298.

Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc.

Sept. 12, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1978.

Mark A. Brown, Sumner, Hanlon, Sumner, MacDonald & Nouss, Clayton, for appellants.

George W. Lang, II, Associate County Counselor, Thomas W. Wehrle, County Counselor, Clayton, for respondents.

DONNELLY, Judge.

This case involves a tax assessment on real property belonging to appellants. Appellants' "First Amended Petition for Refund of Tax Paid Under Protest," filed under § 139.031, RSMo 1969, was dismissed by the trial court on the grounds it "fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted * * *."

There are several issues raised and briefed by the parties. We decide only the question whether the petition states a claim upon which relief can be granted, under § 139.031, against George C. Leachman, the Collector of St. Louis County, Missouri.

According to the petition, appellants constructed a new hotel facility and made changes in existing hotel buildings in 1974; the property was then placed on the assessment rolls at what the county assessor determined to be 1/3 of its fair market value as of January 1, 1975; the county assessor does not assess all properties in St. Louis County as of January 1 of each year, as required by § 137.080, RSMo 1969, at 1/3 of their then fair market value but instead allows existing properties to remain on the assessment rolls without change until a county-wide reappraisal is made; the last county-wide reappraisal was conducted in 1964; construction costs in St. Louis County have substantially increased since 1964; and no compensating adjustments to reduce assessments of new construction in order to bring them in line with older existing construction are made with the result that new construction is consistently discriminated against in favor of old existing construction.

Appellants allege that such discrimination violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 10 of the Constitution of Missouri.

This case is ruled by Sioux City Bridge Company v. Dakota County, Nebraska, 260 U.S. 441, 445, 446, 447, 43 S.Ct. 190, 191, 67 L.Ed. 340 (1923), wherein the United States Supreme Court held that intentional and arbitrary assessment of the property of one owner for taxation at its true value, in accordance with the state constitution and laws, while all other like property is systematically assessed much lower, is a violation of the equal protection of the laws, and said:

"The Supreme Court (of Nebraska) does not make it clear whether it thinks the discrimination charged was proved or not, but assuming the discrimination, it holds that the Bridge Company has no remedy except 'to have the property assessed below its true value raised rather than to have property assessed at its true value reduced.' The dilemma presented by a case...