State ex rel. Classics Tavern Co., Inc. v. McMahon

• Decision Date: 23 January 1990
• Docket Number: No. 56232,56232
• Citation: 783 S.W.2d 463
• Parties: STATE of Missouri, ex rel. CLASSICS TAVERN COMPANY, INC., a Missouri Corporation, Relator-Respondent, v. Peter B.J. McMAHON, Director of Revenue for St. Louis County, Missouri, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 463

783 S.W.2d 463

STATE of Missouri, ex rel. CLASSICS TAVERN COMPANY, INC., a Missouri Corporation, Relator-Respondent, v. Peter B.J. McMAHON, Director of Revenue for St. Louis County, Missouri, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 56232.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Two.

Jan. 23, 1990.

Thomas W. Wehrle, County Counselor, Joseph D. Ferry, Asst. County Counselor, Clayton, for respondent-appellant.

Michael J. Gorla, Clayton, for relator-respondent.

KAROHL, Judge.

Relator in the trial court, Classics Tavern Company [Classics], applicant for renewal of liquor license, sought mandamus in the Circuit Court on Peter B.J. McMahon, Director of Revenue of St. Louis County, [Director], to issue the renewed license. He refused to renew on the authority of a county ordinance. The petition for mandamus is expressly authorized by § 536.150 RSMo 1986 for such cases. The trial court granted mandamus. The Director appeals.

The basic facts alleged in the petition, except assertions which may be characterized as conclusions of law, were not in dispute. It is therefore useful to reproduce the findings of fact of the trial court, to wit:

1. That Relator is a Missouri corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Missouri with its principal place of business located at 11601 West Florissant Avenue in St. Louis County, Missouri;

2. That Relator is engaged in the bar/lounge business and leases said premises located at 11601 West Florissant Avenue for said purpose;

3. That the said premises located at 11601 West Florissant Avenue are considered part of the property described as 11601-11619 West Florissant Avenue in St. Louis County, Missouri, and said property is considered one parcel for real property tax purposes;

4. That the owners of the premises described as 11601-11619 West Florissant Avenue are responsible for paying the real property taxes for said property as assessed by St. Louis County;

5. That Relator has no responsibility for the payment of the real property taxes on the property described as 11601-11619 West Florissant Avenue, St. Louis County, Missouri;

6. That Respondent Peter B.J. McMahon, Jr., is the Director of Revenue for St. Louis County, Missouri, and is responsible for receiving and reviewing applications for the issuance and renewal of licenses for the sale of intoxicating liquor by the drink in St. Louis County, Missouri;

7. That on or about October 1986 Relator applied for and was issued a license by Respondent to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink on the premises located at 11601 West Florissant Avenue in St. Louis County, Missouri;

8. That on or about June 1987 Relator filed an application for the renewal of said liquor license for an additional license year from July 1, 1987, to June 30, 1988, and Respondent renewed said license;

9. That at the time said liquor license was renewed in June 1987, the real property taxes for the year 1986 assessed on the property described as 11601-11619 West Florissant Avenue were unpaid;

10. That on or about June of 1988 Relator filed an application for renewal of its liquor license for an additional license year from July 1, 1988, to June 30, 1989, with Respondent;

11. That on or about June 21, 1988, Relator was notified by Respondent that Respondent refused to renew Relator's said liquor license;

12. That Respondent's refusal to renew Relator's liquor license was made pursuant to Section 801.140(c) of the St. Louis County Code and was based solely on the fact that the real property taxes for the years 1986 and 1987 on the property described as 11601-11619 West Florissant Avenue had not been paid by the owner of said premises.

13. That all of the other conditions under which the original liquor license was issued to Relator have not changed;

14. That Relator has obtained a liquor license from the State of Missouri for the license year July 1, 1988, to June 30, 1989;

15. That other merchants without liquor licenses who have places of business located in the property described as 11601-11619 West Florissant Avenue are not subject to losing their business or merchants' licenses due to the nonpayment of the real property taxes by the owner of said premises 16. That it is imperative and indispensable to the operation of Relator's business that its liquor license be renewed;

17. That Relator would be put out of business and suffer irreparable harm should its liquor license not be renewed.

Director appeals the legal conclusions that County Ordinance § 801.140(c) denies Classics' rights of due process and equal protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Missouri Constitution. The trial court made several findings of fact. Among them were § 801.130 of the St. Louis County Code titled "Renewal of Licenses," which obligated the Director to renew applicant's license upon payment of filing and license fees if the conditions under which the original license was issued have not changed. It also found refusal to renew Classics' liquor license pursuant to § 801.140(c) of the St. Louis County Code upon the basis that the real property taxes on the entire shopping center were unpaid is arbitrary and capricious in violation of the due process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 10 of the Missouri Constitution. The trial court determined enforcement against Classics does not further or enhance the object of the ordinance, which is the collection of real estate taxes assessed by the county, and the ordinance as applied to Classics fails to withstand the due process rational relation test. Further, the trial court found enforcement of § 801.140(c) of the St. Louis County Code violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, § 2 of the Missouri Constitution because the ordinance arbitrarily distinguishes between merchants with liquor licenses and those without liquor licenses. It found this distinction not rationally related to the object of the ordinance, which is collection of real property taxes. The trial court also concluded Classics has no legal obligation to pay the real estate taxes on the entire shopping center, a conclusion not subject to debate.

Director claims the court erred in its conclusions of law because the ordinance involving the classification distinguishing liquor sales businesses from non-liquor sales businesses is rationally related to the legitimate government purpose of securing prompt payment of real estate taxes.

We review this court tried writ proceeding under Rule 73.01 as interpreted in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). We recognize there is a presumption of constitutionality of an ordinance of local government. American Motorcyclist Association v. City of St. Louis, 622 S.W.2d 267, 269 (Mo.App.1981). We also recognize Classics is entitled to a writ of mandamus only if it has an existing legal right to renewal of a liquor license. It has been held that a liquor licensee has a property...