A judge has sided with Warren County’s governing commission for an initial ruling in a legal dispute with the county’s collector of revenue, but a final decision is still some time away.

Collector of Revenue Julie Schaumberg is the elected official in charge of receiving and processing property tax payments for Warren County.

The Warren County Commission is seeking a court order to force Schaumberg to waive the late fees on a private taxpayer’s bill. The taxpayer asked the commission in February to provide relief for late fees on an $832 tax bill. She told the commission she had mailed the check on time and that the collector’s office must have lost it.

Schaumberg has refused to waive the late fees, saying her office never received payment for the tax bill. The commission filed a lawsuit in April, seeking a court order that would force the collector’s office to waive the late payment penalties and accept the tax payment for its original amount.

Franklin County Associate Circuit Judge David L. Hoven, appointed to hear the case, issued a preliminary ruling Aug. 30 in favor of the Warren County Commission. In a short statement, he said Missouri law is clear in giving the commission authority to review tax bills issued by the collector’s office.

Now that a preliminary order has been issued to that effect, Schaumberg’s attorneys have until the end of September to respond before a final ruling is issued. One of those attorneys, Lydia McEvoy, said they still intend to convince the judge to deliver a final ruling in the collector’s favor.

If the ruling ends in favor of the commission, McEvoy said they intend to appeal to a higher court.

Taxpayers’ rights

The Warren County Commission says it is pursuing this lawsuit to protect the right of taxpayers to appeal an unfair bill.

“If we didn’t do something, then if you had a problem with the collector, the collector would end up being the last stop,” said Southern District Commissioner Hubie Kluesner. “This is not about the amount of money or the idea that the taxpayer doesn’t owe the taxes — they most certainly do. This is more about whether the county commission has the right to order the collector to waive penalties and fees.”

In seeking the court order, the commission points to a section of Missouri law which states that any taxpayer who claims there was an error on their tax bill can ask for a refund from the county commission. The commission may approve the request and direct the county collector to issue a refund “if the county made an error or omission in determining taxes owed,” the law in part states.

And that’s the big question: Was there an error on the part of the county? The commission says there was, but the collector’s office says there wasn’t.

Central to the dispute is the taxpayer’s claim that the collector’s office must have lost her payment. The taxpayer stated to commissioners that she sent two payments for two tax bills in the same envelope at the end of December 2017. Schaumberg said payment was only received for one of those tax bills.

The taxpayer asserted that someone must have thrown out the second check along with the envelope.

Commissioners said this question could have been resolved much sooner if the collector’s office had retained payment envelopes, rather than the current practice of disposing of them. That way the collector could prove payment was not received.

“None of us wanted (the dispute) to get to this point, at all. Unfortunately it has,” said Presiding Commissioner Roger Mauzy. “This is for the protection of the taxpayers of this county.”

Collector’s duty

Attorney Lydia McEvoy said the lack of clear evidence showing a mistake on the collector’s part should be a reason for the court to reject the Warren County Commission’s order.

“A ruling that the commission can order a collector to waive interest and penalties, simply based on the fact that the taxpayer claims they mailed a payment, is absolutely contrary to the collector’s duty under Missouri law,” said McEvoy.

To rule otherwise, she said, would damage the entire tax collecting system.

“Everyone in the whole world would just claim that they mailed the payment. ... This happens to dozens of collectors across the state every day, that people claim they mailed the check.”

McEvoy herself is the collector of revenue for Clay County in the Kansas City area. She said she is representing Schaumberg on behalf of all county collectors in Missouri who could be affected by the court’s decision in this case.

She also argued that state law specifically discusses a “refund” of a mistaken tax bill, which presumes that a payment was made.

“The taxpayer never paid, so there is no refund to be issued,” McEvoy said.

Another lawsuit brewing

Even after the circuit court decides how to handle the current legal dispute, and whether or not that decision is appealed, another potential lawsuit is already brewing.

The county commission has blocked Schaumberg from using dedicated collector’s office funding to help pay for her legal defense.

Missouri law requires all counties to keep a “tax maintenance fund” that is solely for the purpose of covering extra expenses for the collector’s office.

According to documents from the collector’s office, Schaumberg directed $179.85 to be issued from the tax maintenance fund to pay for McEvoy’s travel mileage (McEvoy said she isn’t charging any hourly fees). A week later, the commission sent a letter indicating that they would not approve the fund to be used for Schaumberg’s attorney.

McEvoy said Missouri law gives a collector sole authority to use the tax maintenance fund for any expense related to the collector’s office, including legal fees. She said the commission has no authority to interfere, and them doing so could invite an entirely new lawsuit.

Commissioners said they had denied the expenditure on the advice of their attorney, Ivan L. Schraeder, who wrote in a letter that such a payment would constitute the county entering into a contractual obligation with McEvoy.