Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Jackson County Assessments

Electronically Filed - JACKSON - INDEPENDENCE - June 20, 2023 - 03:14 PM
2316-CV16440
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI

AT INDEPENDENCE
Trevor and Amanda Tilton )

364 Wagon Knob Rd )
Odessa Mo, 64076 )
on behalf of themselves and )
all others similarly situated, )
)
and )
)
Square One Homes, LLC )
1117 S Broadway PO Box 110 )
Oak Grove, MO 64075 )
On behalf of itself and )
all others similarly situated )
)
and )
)
TrevCon, LLC )
800 W. Maple Ave )
Independence, Mo 64050 )
On behalf of itself and )
all others similarly situated )
)
)
)
Plaintiffs, ) Case No.
)
v. ) Div. No.
)
Jackson County, Missouri ) CLASS ACTION PETITION
Serve: County Executive Frank White Jr. )
415 E. 12th Street ) Demand for Jury Trial
2nd Floor )
Kansas City, MO 64106 )
)
and )
)
Gail McCann Beatty )
Jackson County Assessor )
Serve: 415 E. 12th Street )
1M )
)
and )
1
)
Whitney Miller )
Jackson County Collector )
Suite 100 )
)
and )
)
V. Edwin Stoll )
Chair, Jackson County )
Board of Equalization )
Rooms 102 and 104 )
)
and )
)
Forestine A. Beasley )
Vice Chair, Jackson County )
Rooms 102 and 104 )
)
and )
)
Lauren Allen )
Member, Jackson County )
Rooms 102 and 104 )
)
and )
)
Tyler Technologies, Inc. )
Serve: Registered Agent )
Capitol Corporate Services, Inc. )
222 E. Dunklin )
Ste 102 )
Jefferson City, MO 65101 )
)
Defendants. )
2
CLASS ACTION PETITION &
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Come now Plaintiffs Trevor and Amanda Tilton, Square One Homes, LLC, and TrevCon,
LLC, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, for their petition for
damages and injunctive relief against Defendants Jackson County, Missouri, Gail McCann Beatty,
Whitney Miller, V. Edwin Stoll, Forestine A. Beasley, Lauren Allen, and Tyler Technologies, Inc.
state and allege as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is a class action claim arising from Defendants’ assessment actions towards
owners of property in Jackson County, Missouri. As more fully set forth below, Defendants’
actions resulted in illegal and unlawful increases in the assessed value of real property throughout
Jackson County, thereby threatening class members with imminent harm in the form of unlawful
and illegal tax increases.
PARTIES
2. Plaintiffs Trevor and Amanda Tilton are residents and citizens of the state of
Missouri and own real property in Jackson County, Missouri, located at 800 W Maple Ave,
Independence Mo, 64050.
3. Plaintiff Square One Homes, LLC is a Limited Liability Company registered in
Missouri and whose members are citizens of Missouri. Square One Homes, LLC owns real
property in Jackson County, Mo, located at 104 E. Lexington Ave, Independence Mo, 64050.
4. Plaintiff TrevCon, LLC is a Limited Liability Company registered in Missouri and
whose members are citizens of Missouri. TrevCon, LLC owns real property in Jackson County,
Mo, located at 109 E. Lexington Ave, Independence Mo, 64050.
3
5. Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and as a representatives of a class of
all similarly situated persons who own real property in Jackson County, Missouri.
6. Defendant Jackson County, Missouri is a first-class county and political
subdivision of the State of Missouri, operating under a charter form of government and which may
be served by serving County Executive Frank White, Jr.
7. Defendant Gail McCann Beatty is, upon information and belief, a resident of
Jackson County, Missouri.
8. Defendant Beatty is being sued both in her individual and official capacity.
9. Defendant Whitney Miller is, upon information and belief, a resident of Jackson
County, Missouri.
10. Defendant Miller is being sued both in her individual and official capacity.
11. Defendant V. Edwin Stoll is, upon information and belief, a resident of Jackson
County, Missouri.
12. Defendant Stoll is being sued both in her individual and official capacity.
13. Defendant Forestine A. Beasley is, upon information and belief, a resident of
Jackson County, Missouri.
14. Defendant Beasley is being sued both in her individual and official capacity.
15. Defendant Lauren Allen is, upon information and belief, a resident of Jackson
County, Missouri.
16. Defendant Allen is being sued both in her individual and official capacity.
17. Defendant Tyler Technologies, Inc. is a foreign company, registered to conduct
business in Missouri, which conducts systematic and continuous business in Missouri, with its
principal place of business in Plano, Texas.
4
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court. The acts complained of in this action
occurred in this State, by Defendants and Defendants’ employees, agents, and officers, all acting
within the course and scope of their agency and employment in this State. Venue is proper pursuant
to §508.010(4).
19. Because the Class is limited to owners of real property in Jackson County, Missouri,
more than two-thirds of the members of the Class are residents of the State of Missouri for purposes
of the Class Action Fairness Act. As set forth in this petition, Jackson County, Missouri is a citizen
of Missouri from whom significant relief is sought by class members and whose alleged conduct
forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by class members. The same is true for Defendants
Beatty, Miller, Stoll, Beasley, and Allen (together, with Jackson County, “the County
Defendants”). Finally, because this petition concerns assessments of real property in Jackson
County, Missouri, the class members’ principal injuries resulting from Defendants’ conduct were
incurred in Missouri.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
20. Since the 1980’s, Defendant Jackson County has used a system called Ascend to
store assessment information on real properties located within the County.
21. In or around 2020, Defendant Jackson County entered into a contract with
Defendant Tyler Technologies, Inc. (“Tyler Technologies”) to replace the Ascend system with a
brand-new Computer-Assisted Mass Appraisal (“CAMA”) system.
22. Because this contract concerned real property located in Jackson County and had
the potential to affect assessments of that property, thereby increasing the tax burden placed on
owners of property within Jackson County, the plaintiffs and class members were not only third-
5
party beneficiaries to the contract, but Tyler Technologies owed a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs and
class members.
23. Under the terms of the contract, not only was Tyler Technologies to create a new
CAMA system to replace the old Ascend system, but it was to gather assessment information on
each parcel of real property in Jackson County, Missouri, including by physical on-site inspection,
and then enter this information into the new CAMA system.
24. Defendant Tyler Technologies breached its obligations under the contract by,
among other things, failing to conduct such on-site inspections of each parcel of real property,
failing to timely have the new CAMA system operational, and failing to include sufficient
assessment information in the new CAMA system so that individual assessments could be
performed.
25. The County Defendants failed to hold Tyler Technologies to the terms of the
contract including by not requiring Tyler Technologies to timely implement the new CAMA
system with the appropriate assessment information for each parcel of property so that fair and
equitable assessments can be performed. As a result, the County Defendants are punishing
taxpayers for their own failures by raising the assessed value, and thereby raising taxes, on real
property within Jackson County in an unlawful and illegal manner.
26. First, the County Defendants failed to provide the required notice of the increased
assessment.
27. Sections 137.180 and 137.355 of the Missouri Revised Statutes require that when
an assessor increases the valuation in any real property, they shall notify the property owner on or
before June 15.
6
28. Section 137.180 requires in relevant part that “whenever any assessor shall increase
the valuation of any real property, he or she shall forthwith notify the record owner on or before
June fifteenth of such increase and, in a year of general reassessment, the county shall notify the
record owner of the projected tax liability likely to result from such an increase, either in person,
or by mail directed to the last known address.”
29. Likewise, section 137.355 requires in relevant part that when “an assessor increases
the valuation of any real property, the assessor, on or before June fifteenth, shall notify the record
owner of the increase … either in person or by mail directed to the last known address, and, if the
address of the owner is unknown, notice shall be given by publication in two newspapers published
in the county.”
30. In full, section 137.355 reads:
1. If an assessor increases the valuation of any tangible personal property as estimated

in the itemized list furnished to the assessor, and if an assessor increases the valuation
of any real property, he shall forthwith notify the record owner of the increase either in
person or by mail directed to the last known address, and if the address of the owner is
unknown notice shall be given by publication in two newspapers published in the
county.
2. For all calendar years prior to the first day of January of the year following receipt
of software necessary for the implementation of the requirements provided under
subsections 3 and 4 of this section from the state tax commission, whenever any
assessor shall increase the valuation of any real property, he or she shall forthwith
notify the record owner on or before June fifteenth of the previous assessed value and
such increase either in person, or by mail directed to the last known address and include
on the face of such notice, in no less than twelve-point font, the following statement:
NOTICE TO TAXPAYER: IF YOUR ASSESSED VALUE HAS INCREASED, IT

MAY INCREASE YOUR REAL PROPERTY TAXES WHICH ARE DUE
DECEMBER THIRTY-FIRST. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE THAT THE VALUE OF
YOUR PROPERTY HAS INCREASED, YOU MUST CHALLENGE THE VALUE
ON OR BEFORE .......... (INSERT DATE BY WHICH APPEAL MUST BE FILED)
BY CONTACTING YOUR COUNTY ASSESSOR.
3. Effective January first of the year following receipt of software necessary for the
implementation of the requirements provided under this subsection and subsection 4 of
7
this section from the state tax commission, if an assessor increases the valuation of any
real property, the assessor, on or before June fifteenth, shall notify the record owner of
the increase and, in a year of general reassessment, the county shall notify the record
owner of the projected tax liability likely to result from such an increase either in person
or by mail directed to the last known address, and, if the address of the owner is
unknown, notice shall be given by publication in two newspapers published in the
county. Notice of the projected tax liability from the county shall accompany the notice
of increased valuation from the assessor.
4. The notice of projected tax liability, required under subsection 3 of this section, from
the county shall include:
(1) Record owner's name, address, and the parcel number of the property;
(2) A list of all political subdivisions levying a tax upon the property of the record
owner;
(3) The projected tax rate for each political subdivision levying a tax upon the property
of the record owner, and the purpose for each levy of such political subdivisions;
(4) The previous year's tax rates for each individual tax levy imposed by each political
subdivision levying a tax upon the property of the record owner;
(5) The tax rate ceiling for each levy imposed by each political subdivision levying a
tax upon the property of the record owner;
(6) The contact information for each political subdivision levying a tax upon the
property of the record owner;
(7) A statement identifying any projected tax rates for political subdivisions levying a
tax upon the property of the record owner, which were not calculated and provided by
the political subdivision levying the tax; and
(8) The total projected property tax liability of the taxpayer.
31. The Defendants, though, did not provide timely notice on or before June 15, 2023,
as mandated by these sections. They failed to provide notice to most, if not all, owners of
commercial property in Jackson County. Nor did the Defendants provide timely notice to many
residential and agricultural property owners.
8
32. In fact, rather than working with a third-party to mail out notices to all property
owners as they had done in the past, the County Defendants decided to handle the mailing
internally, using only their own equipment, printers, and staff.
33. To make matters worse, the County Defendants did not even begin the process of
preparing to mail out notices to commercial property owners until Monday, June 12—just three
days before the mandatory deadline for property owners to receive notice.
34. Not surprisingly, most, if not all, owners of commercial real property in Jackson
County Missouri, as well as a significant amount of residential and agricultural property owners,
did not receive timely notice from Defendants on or before June 15, 2023, as required by law.
35. Due to lack of timely notice as mandated by statute, the increases in property
valuations are illegal, unlawful, and therefore void.
36. The lack of timely notice also effectively denies plaintiffs and class members the
opportunity to appeal, and therefore plaintiffs and class members are not required to exhaust
administrative remedies before they can obtain relief in this Court. McGraw-Edison Company v.
Curry, 485 S.W.2d 175 (Mo.App.1972); and John Calvin Manor, Inc. v. Aylward, 517 S.W.2d 59,
62 (Mo. 1974).
37. In addition to being untimely, the increased valuation is further illegal and unlawful
because it was done in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
38. Specifically, and to provide further context to untimely notice, the County
Defendants failed to require Tyler Technologies to replace the old Ascend system in a timely and
adequate manner. As a result of that failure, the County Defendants did not have the time or
information to complete individual assessments of commercial property in Jackson County.
9
39. As an example, section 137.076 requires of the County Defendants, when assessing
the value of a parcel of real property, that they among other things, “shall consider current market
conditions.”
40. The County Defendants did not consider current market conditions. Instead, for
example, they uniformly increased the value of every non-vacant commercial property with an
improvement in the County by 25%.
41. Vacant commercial properties received an across-the-board increase of roughly
50%
42. Any assessment that considered current market conditions would not uniformly
raise all commercial properties that were vacant, or all commercial properties that had
improvements, at the same rate.
43. This is because, among other reasons, current market conditions vary drastically
depending on the type and use of commercial property. As an example, retail and hotel properties
are doing relatively well in the current market, whereas office space is not.
44. The market conditions are not uniform, and therefore any assessment considering
the market conditions would not result in uniform increases across the board.
45. Had they considered current market conditions, the County Defendants would have
realized that market conditions vary wildly, and a uniform across-the-board increase is not
warranted.
46. Yet, despite all this, Defendant Jackson County, Missouri is preparing to use the
2023 assessments, including all increases therein, to calculate real property taxes for 2023.
47. As such, each and every owner of real property in Jackson County, Missouri is
under threat of imminent harm in the form of an unlawful and illegal tax increase.
10
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
48. Plaintiffs brings this class action on behalf of themselves and the following Class
of similarly situated persons:
All owners of real property in Jackson County, Missouri who, as of June 15, 2023,
did not receive notice of an increase in the valuation of their real property.
49. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, including any parent, subsidiary, affiliate,
or controlled person of Defendants; Defendants’ officers or directors; the judicial officers assigned
to this litigation; and members of their staffs and immediate families.
50. The proposed Class meets all requirements for class certification. The Class
satisfies the numerosity standards. The Class is believed to number in the tens of thousands of
persons. As a result, joinder of all Class Members in a single action is impracticable. Class
Members may be informed of the pendency of this Class Action by published and broadcast notice.
51. The central question of fact and law in this case is common to the Class and
predominates over any questions affecting only individual members: Whether the failure to send
notices on or before June 15, 2023, as required by sections 137.180 and 137.355, renders any
proposed increase in the assessed value of their real property void.
52. This question predominates over any questions affecting only individual persons,
and a class action is superior with respect to considerations of consistency, economy, efficiency,
fairness, and equity, to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this
controversy.
53. A class action is the appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication of
this controversy. The presentation of separate actions by individual Class Members could create a
risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications, establish incompatible standards of conduct for
11
Defendants, and/or substantially impair or impede the ability of Class Members to protect their
interests.
54. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of members of the Class. The
County Defendants failed to provide timely notice to all Class Members.
55. Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class because they are members of the
Class, and their interests do not conflict with the interests of other members of the Class they seek
to represent. The interests of the members of the Class will be fairly and adequately protected by
Plaintiffs and undersigned counsel, who have extensive experience prosecuting complex class
action litigation.
56. Maintenance of this action as a class action is a fair and efficient method for the
adjudication of this controversy. It would be impracticable and undesirable for each member of
the Class who suffered or will suffer harm absent an injunction to bring a separate action given the
damages at issue compared to the costs of litigating each individual claim. In addition, the
maintenance of separate actions would place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the courts
and could result in inconsistent adjudications, while a single class action can determine, with
judicial economy, the rights of all Class Members.
57. Class action treatment of the claims in this action is the superior method of
resolution with respect to concerns of efficiency, fairness, and equity over other available methods
of adjudication.
58. Class action treatment is appropriate in this case because Defendants acted, or
refused to act, in a manner that was generally applicable to – and often identical to – grounds that
are applicable to each member of the Class.
12
59. Notice of this Class Action can be provided to Class Members by using techniques
and forms of notice similar to those customarily used in other cases and complex class actions.
COUNT I – UNLAWFUL LEVY OF TAXES NOT AUTYHORIZED BY LAW, IN

VIOLATION OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 22 OF THE MISSOURI CONSITUTION
60. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein all other allegations in this petition.
61. Any increase in valuation, and therefore any taxes levied on said increase, is not
authorized by law unless timely notice is given to the property owner as set forth in R.S. Mo.
sections 137.180 and/or 137.355.
62. These sections require the notice to be delivered, either in person or by mail, on or
before June 15.
63. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs and the Class Members with notice on or
before June 15, 2023.
64. Hence, any increase in the assessed value on their real properties is void as a matter
of law as such an increase is not authorized by law.
65. Defendants’ actions in attempting, preparing, and threatening to levy taxes based
on the increases in assessed value, without providing the timely notice mandated by law, therefore,
is unlawful and violates Article X, section 22 of the Missouri Constitution in that it seeks to levy
a tax “not authorized by law.”
66. This action, therefore, “seeks to enforce the provisions of sections 16 through 22”
and Plaintiffs, should they prevail, “shall receive from the applicable unit of government [their]
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in maintaining such suit.” Article X, section
23 of the Missouri Constitution.
67. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ actions also violate Article X, section 22
of the Missouri Constitution in that that section also requires: “If the assessed valuation of property
13
as finally equalized, excluding the value of new construction and improvements, increases by a
larger percentage than the increase in the general price level from the previous year, the maximum
authorized current levy applied thereto in each county or other political subdivision shall be
reduced to yield the same gross revenue from existing property, adjusted for changes in the general
price level, as could have been collected at the existing authorized levy on the prior assessed
value.”
68. As a result, Plaintiffs and the Class Members have been damaged and/or are being
threatened with imminent damage in that the Defendants are seeking to require them to pay
unlawful property taxes.
69. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all class members, seek a determination that
the increased assessed value of Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ real property, and therefore the tax
based thereon, are void due to Defendants’ failure to provide timely notice as required by law.
70. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all Class Members, also seek an injunction
preventing Defendants from collecting or attempting to collect real property taxes from Plaintiffs
and Class Members for the year of 2023 in any amount in excess of the taxes which would be due
and payable on said properties for the year 2022.
71. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all Class Members, also seek an order
requiring Defendants to reduce the assessed valuation of Plaintiffs’ and the Class Members’ real
property as shown on the books and records of Jackson County, including Tyler Technologies’
CAMA System, for the year 2023 back to the properties’ most recent assessed value prior to 2023,
when timely notice was provided.
14
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants for actual damages, for
the declaratory and injunctive relief, for the costs of this action, attorney’s fees, and for such further
relief as the Court deems fair and reasonable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
request relief and judgment against Defendants as follows:
a. That the Court enter an order certifying the Class as defined in paragraph 48,
appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class, and directing that reasonable
notice of this action be given to the Class;
b. For a judgment against Defendants for the cause of action alleged against it;
c. For damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
d. For appropriate declaratory relief;
e. For appropriate injunctive relief;
f. For attorney’s fees;
g. For Plaintiffs’ costs incurred; and
h. For such other relief in law or equity as the Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
15
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Kenneth B. McClain _____________________

HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & McCLAIN, P.C.
KENNETH B. McCLAIN #32430
JONATHAN M. SOPER #61204
NICHELLE L. OXLEY #65839
221 W. Lexington, Suite 400
Independence, Missouri 64050
Telephone: (816) 836-5050
Facsimile: (816) 836-8966
kbm@hfmlegal.com
jms@hfmlegal.com
nlo@hfmlegal.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
16

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Jackson County Assessments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Jackson County Assessments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electronically Filed - JACKSON - INDEPENDENCE - June 20, 2023 - 03:14 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI

Trevor and Amanda Tilton )

state and allege as follows:

and illegal tax increases.

Independence Mo, 64050.

3. Plaintiff Square One Homes, LLC is a Limited Liability Company registered in

4. Plaintiff TrevCon, LLC is a Limited Liability Company registered in Missouri and

Mo, located at 109 E. Lexington Ave, Independence Mo, 64050.

6. Defendant Jackson County, Missouri is a first-class county and political

be served by serving County Executive Frank White, Jr.

Jackson County, Missouri.

Jackson County, Missouri.

17. Defendant Tyler Technologies, Inc. is a foreign company, registered to conduct

principal place of business in Plano, Texas.

store assessment information on real properties located within the County.

brand-new Computer-Assisted Mass Appraisal (“CAMA”) system.

property within Jackson County in an unlawful and illegal manner.

before June 15.

or by mail directed to the last known address.”

30. In full, section 137.355 reads:

1. If an assessor increases the valuation of any tangible personal property as estimated

NOTICE TO TAXPAYER: IF YOUR ASSESSED VALUE HAS INCREASED, IT

(8) The total projected property tax liability of the taxpayer.

residential and agricultural property owners.

internally, using only their own equipment, printers, and staff.

valuations are illegal, unlawful, and therefore void.

because it was done in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

information to complete individual assessments of commercial property in Jackson County.

improvement in the County by 25%.

41. Vacant commercial properties received an across-the-board increase of roughly

improvements, at the same rate.

of similarly situated persons:

to this litigation; and members of their staffs and immediate families.

proposed increase in the assessed value of their real property void.

County Defendants failed to provide timely notice to all Class Members.

judicial economy, the rights of all Class Members.

are applicable to each member of the Class.

COUNT I – UNLAWFUL LEVY OF TAXES NOT AUTYHORIZED BY LAW, IN

sections 137.180 and/or 137.355.

before June 15.

before June 15, 2023.

of law as such an increase is not authorized by law.

a tax “not authorized by law.”

23 of the Missouri Constitution.

unlawful property taxes.

and payable on said properties for the year 2022.

when timely notice was provided.

relief as the Court deems fair and reasonable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

request relief and judgment against Defendants as follows:

appointing Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class, and directing that reasonable

notice of this action be given to the Class;

c. For damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

d. For appropriate declaratory relief;

e. For appropriate injunctive relief;

f. For attorney’s fees;

g. For Plaintiffs’ costs incurred; and

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

/s/ Kenneth B. McClain _____________________