State ex rel. Com'rs of State Tax Commission v. Schneider, 62232

• Decision Date: 15 December 1980
• Docket Number: No. 62232,62232
• Citation: State ex rel. Com'rs of State Tax Commission v. Schneider, 609 S.W.2d 149 (Mo. 1980)
• Parties: STATE ex rel. the COMMISSIONERS OF the STATE TAX COMMISSION of Missouri et al., Relators, v. Charles SCHNEIDER, Assessor for St. Louis County, Missouri et al., Respondents, J. David Cassilly, Intervenor.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 149

609 S.W.2d 149

STATE ex rel. the COMMISSIONERS OF the STATE TAX COMMISSION of Missouri et al., Relators, v. Charles SCHNEIDER, Assessor for St. Louis County, Missouri et al., Respondents J. David Cassilly, Intervenor.

No. 62232.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

Dec. 15, 1980.

John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Michael Finkelstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for relators.

Thomas W. Wehrle, St. Louis County Counselor, Clayton, for respondents.

Martin O'Brien, Baldwin, for intervenor.

HIGGINS, Judge.

Relators, Commissioners of the State Tax Commission, seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, Assessor for the County of St. Louis and members of the St. Louis County Board of Equalization, to implement a plan for the equalization of real property assessments in St. Louis County as directed by order of the State Tax Commission. The Commission contends that the writ should issue because St. Louis County assessing officials are under a clear duty to equalize the assessments of real property for property tax purposes and have refused to implement a plan for the revaluation of real property within the county. St. Louis County argues that the writ should not issue because: (1) a petition for review filed by it in the Circuit Court of Cole County and pending on appeal in this Court is an adequate remedy at law; (2) the Commission has not come into Court with clean hands; and (3) the Commission's order to implement a plan to equalize property assessments in St. Louis County is unconstitutional in that it violates equal protection rights guaranteed to citizens of St. Louis County; and (4) Commission Chairman Dennis K. Hoffert had no authority to participate in the determination which resulted in the order. This Court has jurisdiction to issue and determine original remedial writs. Mo. Const. art. V, § 4. Rule 84.22 is procedural, and does not affect jurisdiction. State ex inf. Roberts v. Buckley, 533 S.W.2d 551 (Mo. banc 1976). The alternative writ previously issued is made peremptory.

Mo. Const. art. X, § 3, requires that taxes "shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax." State ex rel. Cassilly v. Riney, 576 S.W.2d 325 (Mo. banc 1979) found that St. Louis County was in violation of this constitutional provision because taxes were not uniform between new homes and homes not assessed since 1960. Mandamus, however, was not utilized at that time to enforce compliance. The State Tax Commission was determined to have the "lawful authority to supervise all assessing officers and boards of equalization and to exercise administrative powers with reference thereto," and was given first opportunity to enforce the "laws relating to the general property tax."

Pursuant to that decision, the State Tax Commission on February 15, 1979, ordered the Assessor and Board of Equalization of St. Louis County to submit a plan no later than July 2, 1979, for the general revaluation of real property in St. Louis County. St. Louis County submitted a plan and on August 29, 1979, the Commission responded. Pursuant to this response St. Louis County submitted an amended plan on October 31, 1979. The Commission held a hearing on the amended plan that same day.

The Commission issued an order on March 28, 1980, which approved the plan and ordered that it be implemented on July 1, 1980 and completed by December 31, 1983. On April 25, 1980, St. Louis County filed in the Circuit Court of Cole County a petition for review of that order and a motion to stay pending final disposition of the proceeding. The Commission wrote a letter to St. Louis County on May 16, 1980, requesting that they detail their plans for implementing revaluation; by letter of May 20, 1980, St. Louis County refused to respond in any fashion "until final adjudication on this matter." The Commission filed this mandamus action on May 23, 1980, and the Alternative Writ was issued July 15, 1980. Upon the Commission's motion, the circuit court dismissed the petition for review on June 1980. Appeal of the dismissal to the court of appeals was transferred to this Court prior to opinion; it is decided concurrently with this case. See St. Louis County v. State Tax Commission, 608 S.W.2d 413 (Mo. banc 1980).

A court will issue a writ of mandamus only when it is shown that the party requesting the writ has a clear and unequivocal right to the relief requested; its purpose is to execute, not adjudicate. State ex rel. Sprague v. City of St. Joseph, 549 S.W.2d 873 (Mo. banc 1977). Mandamus will not issue where there is another adequate remedy available to relator. State ex rel. Kelley v. Mitchell, 595 S.W.2d 261 (Mo. banc 1980).

The Commission, in accordance with the dictates of State ex rel. Cassilly v. Riney, supra, ordered St. Louis County to implement the plan as submitted by the county and approved by the Commission to ensure uniform taxation in compliance with Mo. Const. art. X, § 3, and compliance with § 137.115, RSMo 1978, which requires that property be annually assessed at 33 1/3 per cent of its true value in money. St. Louis County refused to comply with that order and instead sought judicial review.

St. Louis County contends that mandamus should not issue because the petition for review is an adequate alternative remedy of law to determine the issues presented in this action.

The order of the Commission is not reviewable as a contested case pursuant to § 536.100, RSMo 1978, and was properly dismissed by the Circuit Court. St. Louis County v. State Tax Commission, supra. There is no adequate alternative remedy for the enforcement of the Commission's order.

St. Louis County contends that the Commission does not come into court with clean hands because it has failed to enforce the general property tax laws in that no other county has been ordered to revalue property for assessment purposes. It also contends that the order of the Commission requiring it to implement a plan to equalize real property assessments violates equal protection rights of St. Louis County citizens guaranteed by U.S.Const. Amend. XIV, and Mo. Const. art. I, § 2, because St. Louis County is the only county in the state ordered to implement a plan of revaluation and reassessment.

St. Louis County argues that the amount of state aid each school district receives is proportionate to the assessed valuation of real property within each district; as assessed valuation rises, the amount of state aid to that district falls. Consequently, while school district funding remains stable, this happens only because taxpayers in St. Louis County are forced to carry a greater burden....