Zimmerman v. MO Bluffs Golf Joint Venture

• Decision Date: 05 June 2001
• Citation: 50 S.W.3d 907
• Parties: (Mo.App. S.D. 2001) Eugene Zimmerman, in his official capacity as Assessor for St. Charles County, MO., Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Missouri Bluffs Golf Joint Venture, Whitwalt Joint Venture and Bogey Hills Golf and Country Club, Appellants/Cross-Respondents. ED78943 0
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

50 S.W.3d 907 (Mo.App. S.D. 2001)

Eugene Zimmerman, in his official capacity as Assessor for St. Charles County, MO., Respondent/Cross-Appellant, v. Missouri Bluffs Golf Joint Venture, Whitwalt Joint Venture and Bogey Hills Golf and Country Club, Appellants/Cross-Respondents.

ED78943

Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

06/05/2001

Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Nancy L. Schneider

Counsel for Appellant: David L. Welsh

Counsel for Respondent: John R. Moellenkamp and Lisa Leslie

Opinion Summary: Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Whitwalt Joint Venture, Bogey Hills Golf and Country Club, and Missouri Bluffs Golf Joint Venture (Country Clubs) appeal the State Tax Commission decision affirming the Chief Hearing Officer's ruling that all land at issue in the case should receive a residential classification and all improvements should be assigned a commercial classification. Country Clubs argue the Commission erred in affirming the commercial classification of the improvements because: (1) such improvements are part of "land used as a golf course" as that phrase is used in the definition of "residential property" in Section 137.016.1(1) RSMo. (2000)¹; and (2) the Commission refused to consider and apply the classification factors set forth in Section 137.016.5, which would have shown that a residential classification applied to Country Clubs' improvements.

Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Eugene Zimmerman ("Assessor"), filed a cross-appeal alleging that the Commission erred in ruling that the land on which Country Clubs' improvements sit is residential because the land is not "land used as a golf course" as that phrase is used in the definition of "residential property" in Section 137.016.1(1); rather, the land supports commercial improvements and should receive a commercial classification. Assessor further argues that under Article 10, Section 3 of the Missouri Constitution, a commercial classification is appropriate.

Division Four holds: "Land used as a golf course" is the ground itself on which the game of golf is played as well as improvements that are necessarily incident to the operation of a golf course. Thus, the Commission improperly classified some of Country Clubs' land and improvements under its interpretation of "land used as a golf course." Further, under Section 137.016.5 the most immediate suitable economic use of the private golf clubs is as public golf clubs because they have the equipment and facilities needed to make such a conversion. Therefore, any improvements and land that do not fall within "land used as a golf course" should receive a commercial classification.

FN1. All statutory references are to RSMo. (2000) unless otherwise noted.

Simon and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Lawrence E. Mooney, Presiding Judge

Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Whitwalt Joint Venture, Bogey Hills Golf and Country Club, and Missouri Bluffs Golf Joint Venture (collectively referred to as "Country Clubs"), appeal from the decision of the State Tax Commission ("Commission") affirming the Chief Hearing Officer's ruling that all land at issue in the case should receive a residential classification and all improvements should be assigned a commercial classification. Country Clubs argue the Commission erred in affirming the commercial classification of the improvements because: (1) such improvements are part of "land used as a golf course" as that phrase is used in the definition of "residential property" in Section 137.016.1(1) RSMo. (2000)¹; and (2) the Commission refused to consider and apply the classification factors set forth in Section 137.016.5, which would have shown that a residential classification applied to Country Clubs' improvements.

Respondent/Cross-Appellant, Eugene Zimmerman ("Assessor"), filed a cross-appeal alleging that the Commission erred in ruling that the land on which Country Clubs' improvements sit is residential because the land is not "land used as a golf course" as that phrase is used in the definition of "residential property" in Section 137.016.1(1); rather, the land supports commercial improvements and should receive a commercial classification. Assessor further argues that under Article 10, Section 3 of the Missouri Constitution, a commercial classification is appropriate.

We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

Facts

The facts are not in dispute. Country Clubs are all located in St. Charles County, and their property consists of large tracts of land occupied by golf courses. Bogey Hills Golf and Country Club ("Bogey Hills") and Whitwalt Joint Venture, doing business as Whitmoor Country Club ("Whitmoor"), are both private golf and country clubs, while Missouri Bluffs Golf and Country Club ("Missouri Bluffs") operates a public golf course and country club.

Bogey Hills consists of two tax parcels that Assessor referred to as Parcels A and B. Regarding Parcel A, Assessor assigned a residential classification to both the land on which golf was played and improvements necessary to the development of a golf course such as bunkers, tee boxes, sand traps, and greens. The remainder of Parcel A, which consisted of improvements such as a clubhouse, pools, refreshment stands, sheds, fences, lights, basement, and concrete/asphalt areas, was classified as commercial. In addition, Parcel B, an asphalt parking lot that serves Bogey Hills, was also classified commercial. After classifying the property, Assessor calculated the assessed value of the land and improvements under Section 137.115.5 requiring residential property to be taxed at 19% and commercial property at 32% of its true value. Bogey Hills disputed the Assessor's calculated assessment of that portion of land and improvements in Parcel A classified as commercial. It further claimed that Assessor should have classified Parcel B as residential instead of commercial.

Whitmoor consists of three tax parcels which the Assessor called Parcels A, B, and C. Parcel A contains land on which golf is played and was classified residential. This parcel also contains the following improvements, which the Assessor classified as commercial: two maintenance sheds, a mobile home used as a maintenance office, and a wood deck on that office. In addition, Assessor classified Parcel B as commercial property, which includes: land, clubhouse, patio, pools, shed, fence, lights, and concrete/asphalt areas. Regarding Parcel C, Assessor classified some of the land as residential and categorized a golf cart storage shed, refreshment stands, fence, concrete, canopy, pro shop, pool storage area, pool snack bar and locker building, as commercial property. Whitmoor asserts that all of these improvements on Parcels A, B, and C were improperly classified as commercial rather than residential.

Missouri Bluffs tax parcel contains an eighteen-hole golf course, which Assessor classified as residential. It also includes the following items classified as commercial property: other land, clubhouse, restrooms, storage building, lights, asphalt golf-cart paths, asphalt parking lot, canopy, golf course maintenance shed, greenhouse, sand hopper, wall, and other asphalt and concrete areas. Missouri Bluffs alleges the land and improvements in its tax parcel should have been classified residential.Country Clubs appealed the Assessor's classifications to the Commission, whose Chief Hearing Officer determined that all land at issue in the cases before the Commission should be classified as residential and all improvements should be assigned a commercial classification. This determination created the anomalous situation of improvements classified as commercial being located on land classified as residential. The parties appealed the decision to the St. Charles County Circuit Court, which affirmed the Commission's decision. Country Clubs then appealed the ruling to the Missouri Supreme Court, which transferred the case to the Court of Appeals.

Analysis

When sitting in review of an administrative agency, we review the findings and decision of the agency, not the judgment of the circuit court. Village North, Inc. v. State Tax Com'n of Missouri, 799 S.W.2d 197, 199 (Mo.App. E.D. 1990). Furthermore, when an administrative decision is based on the agency's interpretation and application of the law, we review the administrative conclusions of law and its decision de novo, and we make corrections to erroneous interpretations of the law. St. Louis County v. State Tax Com'n, 562 S.W.2d 334, 337-38 (Mo. banc 1978). Because the Commission interpreted several statutes to reach its decision, we independently review its decision.

With this standard of review in mind, we turn to the parties' allegations of error. We will address Country Clubs' first contention of error and the Assessor's cross-appeal together because the root of both claims of error is that the Commission misinterpreted the definition of "residential property" in Section 137.016.1(1). Country Clubs argue in their first point that the Commission erred in failing to order a residential classification of their improvements because they are part of "land used as a golf course" as that phrase is used in the definition of "residential property" in Section 137.016.1(1). More specifically, Country Clubs contend that their improvements are essential to the operation of a golf course complex and thus, should receive a residential classification.

Assessor, however, argues the Commission erred in classifying the land on which the improvements are situated as residential property because the land is not "land used as a golf course" as that phrase is employed in Section 137.016.1(1). Further, Assessor claims that only the land on which golf is played warrants a residential classification. All other land and improvements should be classified as commercial.

We think our holding is mandated by the fact that the legislature used the phrase "land used as a golf course," and not the phrase "real property used in...