Horizons West Properties v. Leachman, 59708
| Citation | 548 S.W.2d 550 |
| Decision Date | 11 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 59708,59708 |
| Parties | HORIZONS WEST PROPERTIES, a Missouri Limited Partnership, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. George C. LEACHMAN, Tax Collector of the County of St. Louis, Missouri, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Simon Rapoport, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
George W. Lang, II, Associate County Counselor, Clayton, for defendant-respondent.
This is an action by Horizons West Properties (hereinafter plaintiff) against George C. Leachman in his capacity as Collector of Revenue of St. Louis County (hereinafter the Collector) to recover 1975 real estate taxes paid under protest. The Collector's motion to dismiss was sustained and the action dismissed. Plaintiff appealed. The appeal involves construction of a revenue law of this state, § 137.180, RSMo 1969 in particular. 1 We affirm.
The petition is in two counts. The allegations of Count I, omitting formal parts and the prayer, are as follows:
"6. On or about January 3, 1975 the plaintiff received a notice from the St. Louis County Department of Revenue, Division of Assessment, which notice stated in part that its 1975 real estate assessment of a certain building owned by plaintiff in St. Louis County had been increased from Two Hundred Fifty Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($250,100) to Three Hundred Eighty-One Thousand Dollars ($381,000) or an increase of One Hundred Thirty Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($130,900). This notice of increase in assessment which is incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A stated in part:
'If you are not in agreement with the new assessment, you may call at the Assessor's Office, Third Floor, St. Louis County Government Center, in Clayton, before May 15 of this year to have your assessment reviewed.'
The notice further stated:
7. On or about February 19, 1975, after arranging a meeting with the St. Louis County Assessor's Office as provided in the notice which it received, plaintiff's general partner and building manager met with Richard Tegethoff, an agent and representative of the St. Louis County Assessor, Frank J. Antonio, to protest the increase in assessed value of plaintiff's building which increase was unreasonably high and totally disproportionate to the value of commercial real estate in the vicinity of plaintiff's building. At this meeting, Mr. Tegethoff, on behalf of the St. Louis County Assessor's Office informed the taxpayer that the St. Louis County Assessor's Office would review the new assessment and would advise the plaintiff of the outcome of this review. By these statements and actions, plaintiff was led to believe that the assessment of its property would be substantially reduced.
8. In good faith, plaintiff relied upon the representations made by the St. Louis County Assessor's Office that the assessor was reviewing the increase in assessment of plaintiff's real estate; and, consequently, did not file an appeal to the County Board of Equalization.
9. Plaintiff was notified after the time for appeal to the County Board of Equalization had passed that the St. Louis County Assessor's Office had not reviewed the assessment of plaintiff's real estate and that no adjustment would be made to the assessed value of plaintiff's property.
10. The failure to timely notify the plaintiff that the St. Louis County Assessor's Office would not review or change the assessed value of plaintiff's property after this office had agreed to such a review violated Section 137.180 R.S.Mo. 1969, since plaintiff did not have notice of the final assessed value placed on its property as required by the foregoing statute.
11. On the 3rd day of December, 1975, plaintiff paid under protest Eleven Thousand Two Hundred Ninety-eight Dollars and Twenty-seven Cents ($11,298.27) for certain real estate taxes extended against its real estate to the Collector of St. Louis County, Missouri.
12. At the time of paying such taxes, plaintiff filed with the collector a written statement setting forth the grounds on which its protest was based, together with the law including any applicable statutes and facts on which it relied in stating its protest, a copy of which statement is incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B.
13. That said collector has rejected this protest and has failed to return the tax money paid under protest, though often requested to do so."
The allegations of Count II, omitting formal parts and the prayer, are as follows:
"2. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the actions and the statements of the St. Louis County Assessor's Office that the assessed value of its property was being reviewed and that the assessment would be substantially reduced. By virtue of this reliance, plaintiff failed to take its appeal to the County Board of Equalization because it reasonably believed that the St. Louis County Assessor's Office was still reviewing the protest which it filed concerning the value of its property.
3. The St. Louis County Assessor's Office by its actions and statements to the plaintiff represented that the assessed value of plaintiff's property would be reduced and, for this reason, plaintiff did not believe it would be necessary and did not in fact take an appeal to the County Board of Equalization.
4. Failure of the county assessor to notify the plaintiff of the outcome of this review of the protested assessment denied plaintiff its right and opportunity to appeal the assessment to the County Board of Equalization and, if necessary, to the State Tax Commission all in violation of Section 137.180 R.S.Mo. 1969. Said failure to notify also violated the Due Process and Assessment Clause(s) of the Missouri Constitution because the amount of the assessment was so disproportionate and unreasonable that it resulted in a deprivation of plaintiff's property without due process of law. (§ 10 Mo. Const. art. I, and § 3 Mo. Const. art. X).
5. By virtue of the actions of the St. Louis County...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prescott v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
...in some extraordinary way been prevented from asserting his rights ...’ ” (citation omitted)).In Horizons West Properties v. Leachman, 548 S.W.2d 550 (Mo. banc 1977), the Supreme Court rejected an estoppel argument where a real-property owner contended that an employee of the tax assessor i......
-
Prescott v. Mo. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
...the plaintiff has in some extraordinary way been prevented from asserting his rights . . ." (citation omitted)). In Horizons West Properties v. Leachman, 548 S.W.2d 550 (Mo. banc 1977), the Supreme Court rejected an estoppel argument where a real-property owner contended that an employee of......
-
Bartlett v. Ross
...Leachman, 654 S.W.2d 897, 900 (Mo. banc 1983); C & D Investment Co. v. Bestor, 624 S.W.2d 835, 838 (Mo. banc 1981); Horizons West Properties v. Leachman, 548 S.W.2d 550, 553 (Mo. banc Here, no administrative appeals were required because the taxpayers challenge only the tax rate. No questio......
-
Twelve Oaks Motor Inn, Inc. v. Strahan
...analysis, including § § 137.180, 137.275, 137.385, and 138.110, RSMo Supp.1998, are revenue laws of the state. See Horizons West Properties v. Leachman, 548 S.W.2d 550, 551 (Mo.banc 1977); Grandview Bank and Trust Co. v. State Tax Comm'n, 617 S.W.2d 109, 110 (Mo.App.1981); C & D Inv. Co. v.......