Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District in Kansas City
KANSAS CITY — The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Western District has reversed a Jackson County circuit court ruling that dismissed a lawsuit by the State Tax Commission seeking to force county officials to comply with an order requiring changes to the county’s 2023 real property assessments, finding that the trial court incorrectly applied res judicata to bar the case and sending the matter back for further proceedings.
In an opinion filed Dec. 30, the appellate court held that the Commission’s mandamus action, which asks the court to compel Jackson County officials and the county Board of Equalization to comply with a specific administrative order issued by the Commission, was based on “new ultimate facts” that arose after an earlier lawsuit had been dismissed, and therefore could not be barred as the same cause of action.
The panel consisted of Chief Judge Anthony Rex Gabbert and Judges Karen King Mitchell and Edward R. Ardini Jr., with Ardini authoring the opinion and all judges concurring.
The case stems from disputes over Jackson County’s 2023 real property tax assessments.
In December 2023, the State Tax Commission and the Missouri Attorney General jointly sued the county and county officials, alleging that the county’s assessment process violated Missouri law by increasing property values by more than 15% without required physical inspections and by failing to provide proper notice and appeal procedures to property owners.
That case went to trial in mid-2024 but was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after the Commission issued its own administrative order addressing the assessment issues.
On Aug. 6, 2024, while the first lawsuit was still pending, the Commission issued an order finding that Jackson County’s 2023 assessment violated state law and directing the county to correct its assessment roll so that increases to subclass (1) real property would not exceed fifteen percent unless justified by new construction or improvements.
The order also required that pending appeals before the Board of Equalization be evaluated under the same limits and that 2024 assessments remain consistent with the corrected 2023 values.
The following day, the Commission and the Attorney General dismissed their lawsuit, and the circuit court entered a dismissal with prejudice.
When county officials did not comply with the Commission’s order, the Commission sent a letter asking county officials to describe their plans for implementation, advising that a lack of response would be treated as a refusal to comply.
The county instead filed its own lawsuit challenging the validity and enforceability of the Commission’s order, and the Commission responded by filing the present action seeking a writ of mandamus to compel compliance.
The trial court dismissed the Commission’s mandamus petition, concluding that it was barred under res judicata principles because the earlier lawsuit had been dismissed with prejudice.
On appeal, the district found that the two cases were not based on the same operative facts.
The earlier case challenged the legality of the county’s assessment process itself, while the later case arose from the county’s refusal to comply with the Commission’s Aug. 6 order, a refusal that had not yet occurred when the first lawsuit was filed or dismissed.
The court noted that res judicata applies only to claims that could have been litigated based on facts existing at the time of the earlier judgment, and does not bar new claims based on facts that occur afterward and alter the parties’ legal relationship.
The county’s refusal to implement the Commission’s order, and its filing of a separate lawsuit attacking that order, constituted new ultimate facts that supported a new cause of action in mandamus, the court said.
The court also rejected the county’s reliance on a prior case involving an employee who unsuccessfully attempted to relitigate a wrongful termination claim in a different forum, finding that unlike that case, the Commission was not attempting to relitigate the same claim for the same relief, but instead was seeking enforcement of an administrative order that did not exist at the time of the earlier litigation.
Because the mandamus action was not barred by res judicata, the appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in dismissing it and reversed the judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District case number: WD87831
