St. Louis Provident Ass'n v. Gruner

• Decision Date: 10 February 1947
• Docket Number: 39895
• Citation: 199 S.W.2d 409,355 Mo. 1030
• Parties: St. Louis Provident Association, a Corporation, v. R. E. Gruner, Collector of the Revenue in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

199 S.W.2d 409

355 Mo. 1030

St. Louis Provident Association, a Corporation, v. R. E. Gruner, Collector of the Revenue in the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Appellant

No. 39895

Supreme Court of Missouri

February 10, 1947

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. William K Koerner, Judge.

Reversed and remanded (with directions).

Alfred L. Grattendick for appellant.

(1) The lien of the taxes for the year 1944 attached to the property in question on June 1, 1943. State ex rel. v Snyder, 139 Mo. 549, 41 S.W. 216; Blossom v. Van Court, 34 Mo. 390; McLaran v. Sheble, 45 Mo 130; Dennig v. Swift & Co., 98 S.W.2d 659; State ex rel. Waddell v. Johnson, 316 Mo. 21; Secs. 10940, 10941, R.S. 1939; United States v. Alabama, 313 U.S. 274, 85 L.Ed. 1327; Opinion of the Attorney General of Missouri, rendered to Hon. H. H. Douglas, Oct. 12, 1942. (2) The lien is indivisible. United States v. Certain Parcels of Land in Philadelphia, Pa., 130 F.2d 782. (3) The tax bill is indivisible. Same authority as under (2).

Charles Claflin Allen and Lehmann & Allen for respondent.

(1) Assessments of taxes under the Constitution of 1875 and related statutes does not become complete until equalized in the manner thereby provided for. State ex rel. City of Dexter v. Gordon, Collector, 251 Mo. 303, 158 S.W. 683. (2) The lien for taxes does not accrue and become a fixed encumbrance until the amount of the tax is determined by the annual assessment of the land and the annual levy of the tax. McAnally v. Little River Drain. Dist., 325 Mo. 348, 28 S.W.2d 650; State ex rel. Martin v. Childress, 345 Mo. 495, 134 S.W.2d 136; United States v. Certain Lands in the City of St. Louis, 29 F.Supp. 92; United States v. Certain Lands in the City of St. Louis, 51 F.Supp. 80.

OPINION

Hyde, P.J.

Action for declaratory judgment in which plaintiff seeks determination of tax exemption from taxes due in 1944 on a lot purchased by it on February 26, 1944 and cancellation of a tax bill issued therefor. The court found that the lot was exempt from the date of its purchase and apportioned the taxes due in 1944 in accordance with the time of ownership of the parties during 1944, making the lot liable only for $ 190.37 of the total tax of $ 787.75. Defendant has appealed.

The questions for decision are: When did the state's lien commence for taxes due in 1944? and Can these taxes be apportioned? Defendant contends that the state's lien attached on June 1, 1943 and that there can be no apportionment. Plaintiff contends that the state's lien did not attach until the amount of the tax was determined by the annual levy, which was after the sale to plaintiff, relying on McAnally v. Little River Drainage District, 325 Mo. 348, 28 S.W.2d 650; State ex rel. Martin v. Childress, 345 Mo. 495, 134 S.W.2d 136; United States v. Certain Lands in the City of St. Louis, 29 F.Supp. 92; United States v. Certain Lands in the City of St. Louis, 51 F.Supp. 80. Plaintiff also argues that apportionment is proper. The case was tried on an agreed statement of facts in which it was conceded that plaintiff was a tax exempt association.

As shown by the authorities cited in the opinion of the United States District Court in the St. Louis case, supra, (29 F.Supp. l.c. 96) there is considerable conflict of authority on the question of when tax liens attach. [See also 61 C.J. 922-924, Sec's. 1172-1173.] The decision therein was based mainly upon the McAnally case, supra. However, we do not consider the McAnally case to be decisive as to the exact date upon which the state's lien attaches because the determination of that precise issue was not necessary to the decision. What was decided therein was that both the state's lien for taxes and the lien of a drainage district for its assessments attached annually, so that the foreclosure of the state's lien for taxes for the year 1926 did not destroy the lien of the district thereafter attaching for future unlevied installments (1927 and 1928) to pay the balance of the original assessment against the land for the drainage works.

This question must be decided upon the construction of Sections 10940 and 10941. (This and all other references not otherwise designated are to R.S. 1939 and Mo. Stat. Ann.) Section 10940 provides: "Every person owning or holding property on the first day of June, including all such property purchased on that day, shall be liable for taxes thereon for the ensuing year." We have held that this does not mean that a personal judgment against the taxpayer is authorized for taxes on real property but that the taxes may be collected by suit to enforce the state's lien against the land. [State ex rel. Hayes v. Snyder, 139 Mo. 549, 41 S.W. 216.] In other words, it is the land that is liable for such taxes for the ensuing year. Section 10941 provides in part, as follows: "Government lands entered or located on prior to the first day of June shall be taxable for that year . . . and a lien is hereby vested in favor of the state in all real property for all taxes thereon, which lien shall be enforced as hereinafter provided . . ." To be considered also is Section 10970 which provides: "Real estate shall be assessed at the assessment which shall commence on the first day of June, 1893, and shall be required to be assessed every year thereafter." [The dates in these sections were originally the first day of August. See Laws 1872, p. 95, Sec. 59; p. 95, Sec. 60; p. 92, Sec. 48.] We think that these sections construed together show the intention of the Legislature to be that the state's lien attaches on the first day of June of each year for the taxes due during the following year. (Now changed by legislation under the Constitution of 1945.)

This court so held in McLaren v. Sheble, 45 Mo. 130 under previous statutes not specifically fixing the state's lien. (See Chap. 12, G.S. 1865) in which it said: "The defendant, being the owner and occupier of the premises on the first Monday of September, 1866, was liable for the taxes of the fiscal year beginning at that date, and such taxes constituted a lien upon the property, by relation, from and after the first Monday of September, although not actually levied till the year 1867." This ruling was based on Blossom v. Van Court, 34 Mo. 390, in which this court held, under the provisions of Article 2, Chapter 135, R.S. 1855, that "this section above quoted (Sec. 18, Art. 2, Chapter 135) appears to fix definitely that the tax should be assessed against the person who was on the first day of February the owner of the property, thus fixing his liability on that day, and charging the property with it as an encumbrance (although the amount of the encumbrance is not ascertained until afterwards.)" (Our italics.)

We must consider that the 1872 Revenue Act (Laws 1872, p. 80) by which our present land taxation system was...