IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY

STATE OF MISSOURI

STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. )

CITY OF INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI, )
)
and )
)
CITY OF BLUE SPRINGS, MISSOURI, )
)
Relators and Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Case No.
)
JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
Serve at: 415 E. 12th Street )
Kansas City, MO 64106 )
)
JACKSON COUNTY LEGISLATURE, )
through its members in their official capacity, )
Serve at: 415 E. 12th Street )
2nd Floor )
Kansas City, MO 64106 )
)
JACKSON COUNTY )
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, )
through its members in their official capacity, )
Serve at: 415 E. 12th Street )
Rms. 102 & 104 )
Kansas City, MO 64106 )
)
FRANK WHITE JR., )
in his official capacity as )
Jackson County Executive, )
Serve at: 415 E. 12th Street )
Kansas City, MO 64106 )
)
GAIL MCCANN BEATTY, )
in her official capacity as )
Jackson County Director of Assessment, )
Serve at: 415 E. 12th Street )
Rm. 1M )
Kansas City, MO 64106 )
)
and )
)

1
CORE/0503726.0025/184506662.2
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., )
Serve at: Registered Agent )
222 E. Dunklin )
Ste. 102 )
Jefferson City, MO 65101 )
)
Respondents and Defendants. )

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS,

DECLARATORY RELIEF (IN THE ALTERNATIVE), AND DAMAGES

Accurate tax assessment is critical for the operation of government and to ensure that those

assessed pay the proper amount in taxes—no more and no less than is necessary to provide

governmental services. Accurate assessment is also critical for governmental budgets. Those

accurate budgets in turn assure that governments do not impose excessive levies nor must they cut

important services if the budgets turn out to be wrong. To ensure accurate taxation, to protect their

citizens, and for their Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Declaratory Relief (in the alternative), and

Damages against Jackson County, Missouri, the Jackson County Legislature, the Jackson County

Board of Equalization, Frank White Jr., Gail McCann Beatty (collectively, "County Defendants")

and TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (together, "Respondents and Defendants"), Relators and

Plaintiffs the Cities of Independence and Blue Springs (together, "Relators and Plaintiffs") state:

PARTIES

1. The City of Independence is a Missouri constitutional charter municipality located

in Jackson County, Missouri.

2. The City of Blue Springs is a Missouri constitutional charter municipality located

in Jackson County, Missouri.

3. Jackson County (the "County") is a Missouri county with a charter form a

government.

2
CORE/0503726.0025/184506662.2
 4. The Jackson County Legislature (the "County Legislature"), through its members,

operates under Article II of the Jackson County Charter and under Article VI of the Constitution

of Missouri. In its official capacity, it is responsible for all legislative power of the County and to

"[p]rovide for the assessment, levy, equalization, and collection of all taxes now or hereafter

authorized by the constitution or by law and prescribe a method or system to facilitate the

assessment, calculation, extension and collection of taxes[.]" Jackson Co. Charter, art. II, § 16.7.

The individual members of the Jackson County Legislature as of the date of this filing are: Manuel

Abarca IV, Jalen Anderson, Charlie Franklin, Venessa Huskey, Jeanie Lauer, Megan Marshall,

DaRon McGee, Donna Peyton, and Sean Smith.

5. The Jackson County Board of Equalization (the "Board of Equalization"), through

its members, operates under Chapter 91 of the Jackson County Code, Article XI of the Jackson

County Charter, and under Chapter 138 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri. In its official capacity,

it is responsible for hearing complaints and the equalization of valuations and assessments on all

real and tangible personal property taxable by Jackson County. The individual members of the

Jackson County Board of Equalization as of the date of this filing are: Lauren Allen, Forestine A.

Beasley, V. Edwin Stoll, et al.

6. Frank White Jr. serves as the County Executive of Jackson County (the "County

Executive"), Missouri. In his official capacity, White is "responsible for the administration of all

affairs of [Jackson County]." Jackson Co. Charter, art. III, § 5. He also has the power to "[c]orrect

errors in assessment and tax records." Id. at § 6.9.

7. Gail McCann Beatty serves the Director of Assessment for Jackson County (the

"Director of Assessment"), Missouri. In her official capacity, she is responsible for the assessment

3
CORE/0503726.0025/184506662.2
of all taxes authorized by law and to facilitate such assessment and all required property valuation

calculations.

8. TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., is a foreign corporation in good standing and

registered to do business in the state of Missouri. Its principal place of business is located in Plano,

Texas.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to §§ 139.300.4, 478.080, RSMo., and

Rule 94.01.

10. Venue is proper in Jackson County, Missouri, pursuant to § 508.060, RSMo.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

Overview of Taxing Process

11. Taxing power may be exercised by counties under the power granted to them by

the general assembly for county, municipal, and other corporate purposes. Mo. Const. art. X, § 1.

12. Jackson County, Missouri, is an established county in Missouri with a

Constitutional Home Rule Charter (the "Jackson County Charter").

13. The legislative power of Jackson County is vested in the County Legislature.

Jackson Co. Charter, art. II, § 1.

14. The County Legislature also has the power to "[p]rovide for the assessment, levy,

equalization, and collection of all taxes […] authorized by the constitution or by law and [to]

prescribe a method or system to facilitate the assessment, calculation, extension and collection of

taxes[.]" Jackson Co. Charter, art. II, § 16.7.

15. The County Legislature's power to tax is administered by the County Executive and

later delegated to the County's Director of Assessment and the Department of Collection.

4
CORE/0503726.0025/184506662.2
 16. Jackson County collects and accounts for approximately $1.3 billion in tax

revenues, including real and personal property taxes, for more than 80 taxing authorities

throughout the County.

17. These various taxing authorities, such as cities, school districts, and fire districts,

decide appropriate tax rates.

18. Relators and Plaintiffs are taxing authorities located within Jackson County.

19. The rates are then applied to a property's assessed valuation, as provided by the

County, to determine the tax levied on the property and owed by the property owner to the taxing

authority.

20. The Jackson County Assessment Department, led by the Director of Assessment

for Jackson County (together, the "Assessor"), is primarily responsible for assessing the valuation

of all real and personal property in Jackson County.

21. Missouri statute requires that property is assessed at market value as of January 1 st

of the year or assessment.

22. Such assessments or valuations are completed every odd-numbered year.

23. When setting property assessments and valuations, all assessors in Missouri are

bound by Missouri laws and rules designed to assure assessments across the state are as uniform

as possible. See generally Chapter 137, RSMo.

24. The general process for property assessment, taxing, and collection in Jackson

County is as follows:

a. The Assessor determines a property's value.

b. That valuation is provided to taxing authority and mailed to property

owners.

5
CORE/0503726.0025/184506662.2
 c. After receiving their valuation, property owners may request a review.

d. After receiving valuations, taxing authorities meet to set tax rates, or levies,

after a public hearing.

e. Following the property owner's review process and the setting of tax rates,

the Jackson County Collector sends property tax bills.

f. Property owners must pay the tax bill by December 31 st each year.

Hiring of Outside Vendor

25. In or around 2020, Jackson County hired a third-party consultant, Tyler

Technologies, to assist with the assessment of more than 300,000 properties in Jackson County.

26. The County's agreement with Tyler Technologies (the "Agreement") is valued at

$17.9 million and included complete reappraisal services and annual property data maintenance

through the 2023 assessment.

27. The Agreement between the County and Tyler Technologies concerned real

property in Jackson County and directly affected the assessments of such property.

28. The Agreement called for the use of a Computer-Assisted Mass Appraisal

("CAMA") program to create assessments.

29. The assessment resulting from the Agreement would be directed to taxing

authorities, such as Relators and Plaintiffs, so that they may set effective tax rates.

30. Relators and Plaintiffs are creditor beneficiaries of the Agreement and the benefit

of performance of the Agreement is conferred upon Relators and Plaintiffs and satisfies the duty

of the County Defendants to provide a complete and certified assessment to Relators and Plaintiffs.

31. The cause of the creation of the contract was to complete an assessment to provide

to taxing authorities such as the Relators and Plaintiffs.

6
CORE/0503726.0025/184506662.2
 2023 Assessment

32. Issues have plagued the 2023 assessment for properties in Jackson County.

33. While Jackson County estimated that the 2023 reappraisal resulted in an average

increase of 30% to assessed values, some Jackson County residents reported increases of 80% or

more with one expert stating the average increase in assessed value was 41.03%.

34. In one instance, 550 properties were all assessed at the exact same value.

35. On information and belief, Jackson County failed to provide notice to some

residents of their newly assessed property valuations by the statutory June 15 th deadline.

36. The traditional deadline for property owners and residents to file assessment

appeals is July 10th, but Jackson County extended this deadline to July 31st.

37. As of the date of this filing, over 54,000 residents of Jackson County have filed

appeals to the Board of Equalization.

38. As of the date of this filing, 24,854 appeals, or 46% of the total number of appeals,

have not been resolved.

39. Corrections and adjustments to the assessment must be completed not later than

September 20th pursuant to § 130.055, RSMo.

40. As of the date of this filing, Jackson County has not yet certified its 2023

assessment.

41. A certified assessment is necessary for taxing authorities to establish approved tax

rates.

42. Taxing authorities, such as Relators and Plaintiffs, are bound by a statutory October

1st deadline to deliver approved tax rates to the Jackson County Collector.

7
CORE/0503726.0025/184506662.2
 43. As of the date of this filing, Relators and Plaintiffs, have not yet received a certified

assessment for 2023 and are unable to set accurate and effective tax rates.

COUNT I – MANDAMUS
(Against County Defendants)

44. Relators and Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.

45. The right to levy taxes is vested primarily in the state but delegated to and exercised

by municipalities such as Relators and Plaintiffs.

46. Relators and Plaintiffs, as municipalities, hold an existing, clear, and unconditional

right and duty to levy taxes, establish effective tax rates, and use such tax revenue to provide for

the general public.

47. Relators and Plaintiffs, and the residents of their cities, depend on accurate

predictions of tax revenue to establish their budgets for operations.

48. Those budgets include such things as police protection, fire protection, and other

essential city services.

49. Without accurate predictions of tax revenue, Relators and Plaintiffs may be forced

to reduce services and lay off employees should the predictions turn out to be materially over-

stated.

50. Conversely, if the tax revenue predictions are materially under-stated, Relators and

Plaintiffs may set their levies too high resulting in residents paying more taxes than are necessary

to operate the municipalities.

51. County Defendants have a corresponding, present, imperative, and unconditional

duty to provide an accurate, timely, and certified property assessment to Relators and Plaintiffs so

that Relators and Plaintiffs may exercise their aforementioned right and duty to levy taxes.

8
CORE/0503726.0025/184506662.2
 52. The aforementioned duty imposed upon County Defendants to provide an accurate,

timely, and certified property assessment is of a clerical nature and County Defendants are required

to perform it, in a prescribed manner pursuant to Chapter 137, RSMo., in obedience to the mandate

of Missouri law, without regard to their own judgment or opinion regarding the propriety of the

act to be performed.

53. County Defendants have defaulted in meeting their duty to provide an accurate,

timely, and certified property assessment to Relators and Plaintiffs.

54. A writ of mandamus shall be Ordered by this Court to compel County Defendants

to meet their aforementioned ministerial duty as required by Missouri law.

55. Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated within, is Relators and Plaintiffs'

"Suggestions in Support" of its Petition for Writ of Mandamus as required by Rule 94.

56. Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated within, is a proposed "Preliminary

Order in Mandamus."

57. Relators and Plaintiffs have incurred costs and attorneys' fees in seeking declaratory

relief, and such costs and fees are reasonable under the circumstances.

WHEREFORE, Relators and Plaintiffs Cities of Independence and Blue Springs request

that Exhibit B "Preliminary Order in Mandamus" be issued by this Court commanding

Respondents and Defendants to file an answer directed to this Petition, and to compel County

Defendants to meet their ministerial duty to provide an accurate, timely, and certified property

assessment to taxing authorities within Jackson County, and award Relators and Plaintiffs the costs

and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred herein, and such other and further relief as the Court deems

just and proper under the circumstances.

9
CORE/0503726.0025/184506662.2
 COUNT II – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(Against County Defendants)

58. Relators and Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.

59. If this Court finds that County Defendants' duties are not clear under Missouri law

in Count I of this Petition, this Count II is pled in the alternative so that this Court may declare

such rights and duties of the Parties.

60. A justiciable controversy exists between Relators and Plaintiffs and the County

Defendants, whereby Relators and Plaintiffs allege the County Defendants are in violation of

various state and local laws regarding their duties to facilitate an accurate, timely, and certified

property assessment for Jackson County, including but not limited to:

a. Sections 4(c) of Article X of the Missouri Constitution for failing to assess

properties as provided by law;

b. Section 22, Article X of the Missouri Constitution for failing to provide

timely notice for an increase in taxes;

c. Section 137.055 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri for not correcting and

adjusting the assessment of properties within Jackson County by September 20 th;

d. Section 137.115 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri for failing to assess all

real property within the county, including new construction and improvements;

e. Section 137.180 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri for failing to notify

owners of property of increases in valuation to their property;

61. The tax revenues and rates of Relators and Plaintiffs are a legally protectable and

pecuniary interest directly in issue and in jeopardy because of the actions of the County

Defendants.

10
CORE/0503726.0025/184506662.2
 62. The actions and duties of the County Defendants, and whether or not such actions

are violations of the aforementioned duties, are questions ripe and ready for judicial determination.

63. Relators and Plaintiffs have incurred costs and attorneys' fees in seeking declaratory

relief, and such costs and fees are reasonable under the circumstances.

WHEREFORE, Relators and Plaintiffs City of Independence, Missouri, and City of Blue

Springs, Missouri, in the alternative to Count I of their Petition, respectfully requests that this

Court enter Judgment declaring Jackson County, Missouri, the Jackson County Legislature, the

Jackson County Board of Equalizations, Frank White Jr., and Gail McCann Beatty and their

actions related to the 2023 assessment are in violation of state law and void, are and were under a

ministerial duty to deliver an accurate, timely, and certified assessment to Relators and Plaintiffs,

and to declare all assessments and valuations made in 2021 as the current figures for use for 2023

levying purposes for taxing authorities, and that such Judgment awards Relators and Plaintiffs the

costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred herein, and such other and further relief as the Court

deems just and proper under the circumstances.

COUNT III – BREACH OF CONTRACT

(Against TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.)

64. Relators and Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.

65. County Defendants and TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. executed a valid contract

for which TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. would provide complete reappraisal services and

annual property data maintenance for County Defendants.

66. Relators and Plaintiffs are creditor-beneficiaries of the contract between the County

Defendants and TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

11
CORE/0503726.0025/184506662.2
 67. TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. had a duty to create provide an accurate, timely,

and certified assessment to County Defendants and in turn to Relators and Plaintiffs under the

contract.

68. TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. has yet to deliver the aforementioned assessment

and is in direct breach of the contract.

69. Relators and Plaintiffs have suffered damages as a result of TYLER

TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'s breach, in an amount to be proven later at trial but exceeding

$25,000.00.

70. Relators and Plaintiffs have incurred costs and attorneys' fees in seeking declaratory

relief, and such costs and fees are reasonable under the circumstances.

WHEREFORE, Relators and Plaintiffs pray for Judgment against TYLER

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. in an amount to be proven later at trial but exceeding $25,000.00,

together with interest at the highest allowable rate, including prejudgment interest, costs,

reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper

under the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

STINSON LLP

By: _/s/ Chuck Hatfield______________

Charles W. Hatfield, No. 40363
Gunnar T. Johanson, No. 74714
230 W. McCarty Street
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Phone: (573) 636-6263
chuck.hatfield@stinson.com
gunnar.johanson@stinson.com

12
CORE/0503726.0025/184506662.2