State ex rel. St. Francois County School Dist. R-III v. Lalumondier

• Decision Date: 10 February 1975
• Docket Number: A,No. 1,No. 58586,R-II,58586,1
• Citation: 518 S.W.2d 638
• Parties: STATE of Missouri ex rel. ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTppellant, v. C. A. LALUMONDIER et al., Respondents
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 638

518 S.W.2d 638

STATE of Missouri ex rel. ST. FRANCOIS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT R-III, Appellant, v. C. A. LALUMONDIER et al., Respondents.

No. 58586.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

Feb. 10, 1975.

Charles W. Medley, Gary E. Stevenson, Farmington, for appellant.

W. Oliver Rasch, Bonne Terre, John S. Marsalek, Moser, Marsalek, Carpenter, Cleary, Jaeckel, Keaney & Brown, St. Louis, for respondent St. Joe Minerals Corp.

HOLMAN, Judge.

Relator, St. Francois County R-III School District, filed this certiorari proceeding in an effort to obtain a review of the action of the St. Francois County Board of Equalization (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') in failing to increase the assessed valuation of certain real property for the year 1973. The properties involved are 99 tracts owned by St. Joe Minerals Corporation that are located in relator's district. The trial court sustained motions to dismiss, filed by respondents, on the basis that relator did not have standing to seek a review of the action of the Board. Relator has duly appealed. We have appellate jurisdiction because a construction of the revenue laws of the state is involved. We affirm.

The petition of relator alleged that 'Prior to August 7, 1973, the School District . . . discovered that 99 of the St. Joe tracts within the boundaries of the School District were assessed at approximately $285,000 having been reduced from an assessment of $898,160, in 1972. That the true value of said real estate as of January 1, 1973, was $2,049,073. . . . that such discrepancy was reported to the Board and on August 7, 1973, C. A. Lalumondier, Jeff Matkin, Emmett Shelley, and Elliott Straughan met as the St. Francois County Board of Equalization and thereafter announced that the Board had reviewed the assessment and by a secret vote of 2 to 2, voted not to increase the assessment and therefore, because there was no majority vote, the Board could not increase the original assessment as made by the assessor.

'The School District then requested that the full five members of the Board of Equalization be convened and vote on the question of whether the above 99 tracts of real estate were assessed at their true value, and that any member of the Board who owned stock or had an interest in St. Joe; . . . refrain from voting.

'That thereafter a meeting of the full Board of Equalization was planned for August 8th and 9th, 1973, to pass on the question of whether the St. Joe assessment was correct but before the Board had such meeting it was announced on August 9th, 1973, that the Board had recessed for the year 1973.

'The School District has since learned that two members of the Board of Equalization who voted on the question of the St. Joe assessment had a financial interest in St. Joe and had other conflicts and personal interest in St. Joe, and owned stock in St. Joe which would prevent them from fairly exercising their judgment as to the true value of the St. Joe real estate.

'That an assessment of $295,000 on the St. Joe real estate mentioned herein is not the true value of such real estate and is unreasonably low, and is contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence and was arbitrary and constituted an abuse of discretion.

'That the decision of the County Board of Equalization not to increase the St. Joe Assessment for 1973, was void or voidable . . .

'The decision of the Board is not subject to administrative review and there is no other provision for inquiry into or review of such decision.' The prayer sought an adjudication concerning the legality of said proceedings and for general relief.

The General Assembly has provided a comprehensive plan for the assessment and equalization of the value of property for ad valorem taxes. The statutes, in part, provide the following: Section 137.115 ¹ (prior to amendment effective December 31, 1974) provided that the assessor should, prior to June 1st, assess all taxable real and tangible personal property at its true value in money. It is provided in Section 137.275 that 'Every person who thinks himself aggrieved by the assessment of his property may appeal to the county board of equalization, in person, by attorney or agent, or in writing.' Section 138.010(1) provides that 'In every county in this state, except as otherwise provided by law, there shall be a county board of equalization consisting of the judges of the county court, the county assessor, the county surveyor . . .' Section 138.030(2) states that 'The board shall hear complaints and equalize the valuation and assessments upon all real and tangible personal property taxable by the county so that all the property shall be entered on the tax book at its true value.' And in Section 138.050 it is specified that the board '. . . shall raise the valuation of all tracts or parcels of land and all tangible personal property as in their opinion have been returned below their real value . . . the board shall meet on the second Monday in August in each year to hear any person relating to any such increase in valuation; (and) shall reduce the valuation of such tracts or parcels of land or any tangible personal property which, in their opinion, has been returned above its true value as compared with the average valuation of all the real and tangible personal property of the county.' Section 138.060 provides that 'The county board of equalization shall, in a summary way, determine all appeals from the valuation of property made by the assessor, and shall correct and adjust the assessment accordingly.'

Appeal to the state tax commission is provided for in Section 138.430(2) as follows: 'Every owner of real property or tangible personal property and every merchant and manufacturer shall have the right of appeal from the local boards of equalization under rules prescribed by the state tax commission. Said commission shall investigate all such appeals and shall correct any assessment which is shown to be unlawful, unfair, improper, arbitrary or capricious.' It is well settled that a taxpayer who appeals to the state tax commission and is aggrieved by its decision may obtain a review by the circuit court. Rules 100.03 to 100.07, V.A.M.R., inclusive. And if aggrieved by the circuit court judgment may obtain appellate review.

In the event a property owner appeals from the decision of the board the county may appear before the tax commission and seek to uphold the valuation fixed by the board. If the commission grants relief to the property owner it is now clear that the county may obtain a review of that decision in the circuit and appellate courts. In re St. Joseph Lead Company, 352 S.W.2d 656 (Mo.1961).

The precise question presented on this appeal is whether in a suit of this nature a school district may obtain a review of a decision of the county board of equalization which failed to increase an alleged underassessment of the real estate of a taxpayer. In that connection this court in the St. Joseph case, supra, said that '. . . the legislature may grant the right of appeal or review of tax assessments to either the taxpayer or the state (or one of its political units), and it may also limit or deny the right to either the taxpayer or the state.' 352 S.W.2d 659. It appears in the transcript that relator appealed this decision to the state tax commission but that the commission dismissed the appeal for the reason that the statute only provides a right of appeal to a property owner. While the correctness of that action is only incidentally before us we think it is appropriate to say that we agree therewith because such was in accord with the express statutory provision.

We have concluded that relator did not have standing to obtain a review in this action and that the court ruled properly in dismissing the petition.

In connection with the question before us it may be of interest to note that the Commission took no affirmative action in regard to these properties. The assessments were made by the assessor and the Commission merely failed to increase the amounts. 'Certain recognized principles in the law of taxation may well be noted. Assessments and the valuations of real estate for taxation are never subject to exact ascertainment, and they are, at best, matters of opinion and estimate on the part of the taxing officials . . . There is a presumption of validity and of good faith in the actions of taxing officials, and of the correctness of assessments.' May Department Stores Co. v. State Tax Commission, 308 S.W.2d 748, 759 (Mo.1958).

Relator no longer contends that it has a right to appeal under Section 138.430(2) or to a review under Rules 100.03 to 100.07 inclusive. It is its contention here that the constitution provides a right of review for all administrative decisions and that a review in this type of case may be obtained by certiorari under the provisions of Rule 100.08 which is substantially the same as Section 536.150.

Section 22, Art. V, Mo.Const.,...