Municipal housing authority subject to Chapter 99, RSMo 1959, not liable for ad valorem taxes assessed and levied, but not collected, on property it condemns, and such property may not be sold for such taxes.

I])AXAT:::ON: MUNICIPAL HOUSING AUTHORITY: Municip~l housing authority subject to Chapter 99, RSMo 19,9, not liable for ad valorem taxes assessed and levied, but not collected, on property it con- demns , and such property may not be sold for such taxes. January 23, 1964 Honorable Lon J. Lsvvis ' Prosecuting Attorney Audrain County Mexico, Mi ssouri Dear Mr. Levvis: Opinion No . 391 (63) :fF 19 ( {Cf(..;) F l L F n I '!· This opinion i s rendered in answer to your inquiry reading as followst "Somo time prior to October 19, 1962, the Housing Authority of the City of Mexico, Missouri, instituted condemnati on proceedings against a certain piece of residence property in tho City of Mexico and owned by one Oarlcna Brooks, said real estate to be used in a houeing project that then had been proposed. Commi ssioners were ap- pointed and on October 19, 1962, they returned into Court an award of $3,750 .00. Said ownor, in due time, excepted to aaid award. On June 12, ; •· 1963, a£ter several j uries had awarded damages in l esser amounts than the commissioners had awarded ln t he respective cases, Garlena Brooks filed in his case a withdrawal of h1a exceptions to t he commissioners• award. "Both a t the time of tho award to Brooks by the commissioners and at the time of his with- drawal of exceptions to that award t he state and county taxes on said property tor the years 1959, 1960, and 1961 were unpaid, and at the time of Brooks's withdrawal of exceptions the state and county taxes for 1962, also, were delinquent, and taxes for 1963 were a lie n on said prop~rty . The State or Missouri, the County of Audrain, and the Audrain County Collector were not made parties to the condemnation proceedings . No notice of said condemnation proceedings was given to t he State . Hon. Lon J . Levvis -2- the County, or the Collector. The amount awarded by the commissioners ($3,750.00) was paid into Court and disbursed by tbe Clerk without any pro- vision being made for the pa1f11ent of said taxes and without any notice to the State, County, or Collector. The Collector has demanded payment of said taxes by said Housing Authority. The Authority bas refused to pay said taxeG and takes the position that it 1s not liable for them. n I wish that you would please let me have your opinion on the following question based on the foregoing facta& HatJ the acquirement or said property by said Housing Authority througb the condemnation proceedings wiped out the state's and county's lien for aa1d taxes so that said property cannot be sold by the collector and so that aaid Houa,1ng Authority has no respona1bil ty for the payment of said taxes? ' , I "The Housing Authority law is embodied in Chapter 99 of the Miasouri Statutes . See, parti- cularly, sections 99.080 and 99.200. " • , ' I ~ I I The legal character or a mURicipal housing authorit7 formed under Chapter 99, RSMO 1959, is clearly described in the following language from Section 99.080, RSMo 1959: !tAn authority ah$11 constitute a municipal corporation, exercising public and essential governmental functions, . . •" • In Laret Investment Company v. Dickmann, 345 Mo. 449, l.e. 454, 455, 134 SW2d 65, we find the Supreme Court or Miasour1 alluding to the legal charaoter of a ~e1pal housing authority in the following language. "The broad definition of a municipal corporation requires that it be formed for the purpose of performing some governmental function . The G3neral Assembly, in tbe Aet under consideration, declared the Housing Authority to be a municipal corporation. defined its p~rpoaes, declared thom to be governmental £unctions, and declared the existence or an urgent neoese1ty for 1ts services. • • • We must presume that the decla~ed purposes are 'public purposes' and governmental functions unless 1 t clearly appears that they are not in harmony with the provisions of the Constitution." Hon Lon J. Levvis -3- In Schmoll v. Housing Authority of St. Louis County, 321 SW2d 494, l . c. 496, the following l anguage sustains the proposition that a municipal housing authority is exempt from ad valorem taxes: "It has been expressly held on two occasions, and all the reasons were fully considered, that housing authority property is exempt from ad valorem taxes. Laret Investment Co. v. Dickmann, supraj Bader Realty & Inv. Co. v. St. Louis Housing Authority, supra. [358 Mo. 747, 217 SW2d 489]" The fact A disclosed in your inquiry establish that prior to the time the municipal housing authority acquired title to the property in question by condemnation proceedings, taxes had been levied and assessed against the tract while under private owner- ship and that such taxes remained delinquent and unpaid by the private owner. To such state of facts we direct the followi~ holding from State ex rel. City of St. Louis v. Baumann, 348 Mo. 164, l.c . 168, 153 SW2d 31, 34: "Even though taxes have been levied and assessed against a tract of land whil e under private owner- ship, if it be afterwards acquired by a governmental agency such taxes may not be collected~ - The doctrine announced in City of St. Louis v. Baumann, supra, has been affirmed in the recent decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Missouri, en bane, on January 13, 1964 (not yet officially reported) in State of Missouri ex rel. County Collector of Greene County, et. al., v. City of Springfield, Missouri, et. al., No. 49,424. Enclosed find an opinion of this office dated September 5, 1947, addressed to Honorable Roy A. Jones, Prosecuting Attorney of Johnson County, Missouri, which directs attention to Section 139.120, RSMo 1959 (Sec. 11086 RSMo 1939), outlining the proce- dure for distraint of personal property of one liable for taxes on real estate. CONCLUSION It is the opinion of this office that a municipal housing authority subject to Chapter 99, RSMO 1959, is not liable for ad valorem taxes assessed and levied, but unpaid, on property it condemns for its purposes, and the property so condemned may not be sold for such taxes. Mr. IA>n J. Levvis -4- The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve was prepared by my assistant, Julian L. O'Malley. ENCL. JID/dg Yours very truly, THOMAS F'. EAGLETON Attorney General