1, Matt Bass v. Circuit (In re Circuit Court Budget of the 45TH Judicial Circuit of State), No. SC 95791.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | Mary R. Russell, Judge |
| Citation | 528 S.W.3d 357 |
| Parties | In re: Circuit Court Budget of the 45th Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri, LINCOLN COUNTY COMMISSION, Dan Colbert, Presiding Commissioner, Eugene Galloway, Commissioner, Dist. 1, Matt Bass, Commissioner, Dist. 2, Respondent, v. FORTY-FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, Presiding Circuit Judge, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. SC 95791. |
| Decision Date | 27 June 2017 |
528 S.W.3d 357
In re: Circuit Court Budget of the 45th Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri,
LINCOLN COUNTY COMMISSION, Dan Colbert, Presiding Commissioner, Eugene Galloway, Commissioner, Dist. 1, Matt Bass, Commissioner, Dist. 2, Respondent,
v.
FORTY-FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, Presiding Circuit Judge, Appellant.
No. SC 95791.
Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc.
Opinion issued June 27, 2017
Rehearing Denied September 12, 2017
The 45th circuit was represented by Robert J. Guinness of Guinness & Buehler LLC in St. Charles, (636) 947-7711.
The county commission was represented by Neil J. Bruntrager of Bruntrager & Billings PC in St. Louis, (314) 646-0066.
Mary R. Russell, Judge
This case is a petition for review of a decision by the Judicial Finance Commission and concerns the reasonableness of the 45th Judicial Circuit Court's ("45th Circuit") 2016 budget as submitted to the Lincoln County Commission ("County Commission"). The Judicial Finance Commission
found $26,525 of the total requested budget estimate for attorneys' fees was speculative and unreasonable. The Judicial Finance Commission's decision is affirmed because $26,525, representing an estimate of future attorneys' fees, was an unreasonable budgetary request.
Background
Over the last several years, the 45th Circuit has been involved in various litigation matters with the County Commission regarding the 45th Circuit's budget.1 In December 2015, when the 45th Circuit submitted its budget estimate for 2016 to the County Commission as required by sections 50.540 and 50.640,2 it included an estimate of $35,000 for attorneys' fees to represent the 45th Circuit in litigation or other legal matters for the year. The County Commission contested the $35,000 estimate and filed a petition for review in the Judicial Finance Commission pursuant to section 50.640.2. The parties agreed to submit the case to the Judicial Finance Commission by filing affidavits and briefs.
The Judicial Finance Commission, in a decision dated June 2, 2016, determined the attorneys' fees for $8,475 and $12,060 were reasonable as they were for attorneys' fees already incurred.3 It ordered Lincoln County to pay the $8,475 from the 45th Circuit's budget and the $12,060 from the county's own budget. The Judicial Finance Commission reversed the remaining $26,525 of the $35,000 budget estimate for attorneys' fees. It concluded future potential attorneys' fees "are very different from most future expenses outlined in a proposed budget. Normally, future expenses such as salaries, rent, utilities, and supplies are regularly occurring and largely predictable." The Judicial Finance Commission concluded the budget request was "entirely speculative." Accordingly, it found the remaining $26,525 in the 45th Circuit's proposed budget to be unreasonable.
The 45th Circuit filed this petition for review of the Judicial Finance Commission's decision pursuant to section 477.600.7 and Supreme Court Operating Rule 12-23.01.4
Standard of Review
This Court reviews decisions by the Judicial Finance Commission de novo. Sec. 477.600.7. When reviewing such decisions, this Court "does not engage in any close reconsideration of the [Judicial Finance] Commission's conclusions with respect to reasonableness of circuit court expenditures where the basis for such conclusions is apparent from the record." Cooper Cnty. v. Circuit Court of 18th Judicial Circuit of Mo. , 124 S.W.3d 466, 467 (Mo. banc 2004). This holding is consistent with the statutory authority given to the Judicial Finance Commission to be the arbiter of budget disputes between county commissions and circuit courts.
Bosley v. Berra , 688 S.W.2d 353, 354 (Mo. banc...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Franklin v. Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Mo., SC 99010
...from the record" when reviewing JFC decisions. Cnty. of Franklin , 620 S.W.3d at 214 (quoting Lincoln Cnty. Comm'n v. 45th Jud. Cir. , 528 S.W.3d 357, 358 (Mo. banc 2017) ). "The issues presented in this appeal, however, do not involve conclusions regarding the reasonableness of expenditure......
-
State ex rel. Mennemeyer v. Lincoln Cnty., No. ED 104941
...the Missouri Supreme Court. The Court later affirmed the Second JFC Case decision in Lincoln County v. Forty-Fifth Judicial Circuit , 528 S.W.3d 357 (Mo. banc 2017), but noted the issues raised in the writ of mandamus case were not before it.On July 13, 2016, the Presiding Judge filed a mot......
-
Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Franklin v. Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Mo., SC 99010
...from the record" when reviewing JFC decisions. Cnty. of Franklin , 620 S.W.3d at 214 (quoting Lincoln Cnty. Comm'n v. 45th Jud. Cir. , 528 S.W.3d 357, 358 (Mo. banc 2017) ). "The issues presented in this appeal, however, do not involve conclusions regarding the reasonableness of expenditure......
-
State ex rel. Mennemeyer v. Lincoln Cnty., No. ED 104941
...the Missouri Supreme Court. The Court later affirmed the Second JFC Case decision in Lincoln County v. Forty-Fifth Judicial Circuit , 528 S.W.3d 357 (Mo. banc 2017), but noted the issues raised in the writ of mandamus case were not before it.On July 13, 2016, the Presiding Judge filed a mot......