ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District found that the appellants in a court case failed to timely appeal their issue and affirmed a lower court decision involving district assessment levies.
In the case, the central dispute revolves around whether property owners in the Downtown St. Louis Community Improvement District (CID) are eligible to seek refunds for special assessments they believe are unlawful and unconstitutional, according to the July 16 opinion in the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District.
Appellants, comprising various property owners within the CID, contested the validity of these assessments and sought refunds under Missouri law.
The CID Act, established by the Missouri legislature in 1998, allows municipalities to form CIDs that can levy special assessments and taxes on real property within their boundaries to fund improvements and services.
In 2011, the city of St. Louis created the Downtown St. Louis CID, enabling it to impose special assessments for ten years starting July 12, 2011.
Disputes arose when several property owners, including Appellants, challenged the legality and constitutionality of these assessments.
Initially, in a lawsuit filed in 2019, 1123 Washington Avenue Retail Condo challenged certain expenditures of the district but did not prevail. The trial court ruled that the challenge was untimely under the CID Act, which sets 90 days for challenging assessments.
In 2021, the appellants filed another lawsuit seeking similar relief. The trial court ruled in favor of the district, St. Louis, and the collector of revenue, granting them summary judgment.
The court held that the first two counts of the lawsuit were barred by res judicata, as they were identical to claims in the 2019 lawsuit. As for Count III, which sought refunds under the Refund Statute, the court found it barred by collateral estoppel and alternatively by the statute of limitations.
On appeal, the appellants argued that their claim under the Refund Statute was not time-barred and distinct from their previous challenges to the assessments' lawfulness.
However, the appellate court upheld the trial court's decision.
The court reasoned that the appellants' attempt to seek refunds for taxes paid under protest was effectively a challenge to the legality of the assessments.
The court rejected the appellants' argument that the Refund Statute provided an alternative avenue outside the CID Act's framework, noting that the specific provisions prevailed over the more general provisions in the context.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the appellant's claim for refunds under the Refund Statute was indeed time-barred.
By doing so, the court upheld the principle that statutory time limits are crucial in maintaining the orderly administration of legal challenges and ensuring adherence to legislative frameworks designed to govern special assessments within CIDs.
The appellants were represented by Elkin L. Kistner and William Kistner. The respondents were represented by Joanne Sandifer, Denyse L. Jones, John F. Garvey Jr., Abby J. Duncan and Erin K. McGowan.
Attorneys for the parties declined to further comment on the matter.
Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District case number: ED112215