186 S.W.3d 272 (Mo.banc. 2006), S.C. 87121, State ex rel. Broadway-Washington Associates, Ltd. v. Manners

Docket Nº:S.C. 87121.
Citation:186 S.W.3d 272
Party Name:STATE ex rel. BROADWAY-WASHINGTON ASSOCIATES, LTD., Relator, v. The Honorable Michael W. MANNERS, Respondent.
Case Date:March 21, 2006
Court:Supreme Court of Missouri

Page 272

186 S.W.3d 272 (Mo.banc. 2006)

STATE ex rel. BROADWAY-WASHINGTON ASSOCIATES, LTD., Relator,

v.

The Honorable Michael W. MANNERS, Respondent.

No. S.C. 87121.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

March 21, 2006

Appeal From: Original Proceeding in Prohibition

Page 273

W. Edward Reeves, Caruthersville, Rhonda E. Smiley, Kansas City, for Relator.

Steven E. Mauer, Jeremiah J. Morgan, Megan J. Redmon, Lucille R. Myles, Timothy P. Price, Kansas City, MO, for Respondent.

Frederick H. Riesmeyer, II, Kansas City, Eric J. Shane, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae.

OPINION

RICHARD B. TEITELMAN, Judge.

Relator Broadway-Washington Associates, Ltd. ("Broadway"), seeks a writ of prohibition barring respondent from taking any further action other than sustaining Broadway's motion to dismiss the underlying condemnation action. The Tax Increment Financing Commission of Kansas City filed a condemnation petition five years after the adoption of the ordinance approving the redevelopment project. The

Page 274

circuit court entered an order of condemnation. Section 99.810.1(3), RSMo 2000, 1 requires that the subject property be "acquired" within five years of the adoption of the ordinance. Filing a condemnation petition does not result in the acquisition of private property. Therefore, the circuit court was without jurisdiction to enter an order of condemnation, and the preliminary writ of prohibition previously issued is made absolute.

FACTS

The Real Property Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act sections 99.800 to 99.865 authorizes municipalities to utilize eminent domain to take private property to facilitate redevelopment.2 On September 2, 1999, the City of Kansas City passed an ordinance authorizing a redevelopment plan under the act that included land owned by Broadway. The ordinance became effective on September 12, 1999.

On September 13, 2004, the commission filed a condemnation petition seeking to acquire Broadway's property. Broadway filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because section 99.810.1(3) provides that the commission had to acquire the property within five years of the adoption of the ordinance. Broadway argued that filing a condemnation petition did not result in the acquisition of Broadway's property and the condemnation was untimely under section 99.810.1(3). The circuit court overruled Broadway's motion.

On July 13, 2005, the circuit court entered an order of condemnation. A hearing was held to determine the value of the property that was taken from Broadway. Broadway was awarded $3.23 million, and that amount was paid into the circuit court's registry on October 18, 2005. On November 1, 2005, this Court entered a preliminary writ of prohibition.

Broadway argues that the word "acquired" as used in section 99.810.1(3) means that title to the property must be transferred within five years of the adoption of the ordinance.3 Conversely, the commission argues that the word "acquired" refers to filing a condemnation petition. The commission asserts that Broadway's position misconstrues the statutory language and would enable a landowner to employ delay tactics preventing the acquisition of property within the five-year timeline.

ANALYSIS

I. Prohibition

Prohibition is a discretionary writ that may be issued to prevent an abuse of judicial discretion, to avoid irreparable harm to a party, or to prevent exercise of extra-jurisdictional power. State ex rel. York v. Daugherty, 969 S.W.2d 223, 224 (Mo.banc 1998). A writ of prohibition may be issued if condemnation proceedings are unauthorized....

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
25 practice notes
22 cases
  • 238 S.W.3d 177 (Mo.App. W.D. 2007), WD 66416, Furne v. Director of Revenue
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • August 28, 2007
    ...cause based upon its assessment of th[e] evidence and the officer's own equivocation of the existence of probable cause." York, 186 S.W.3d at 272. Thus, the Court gave deference to the trial court's judgment even though considering uncontroverted evidence. The Missouri Supreme Court fu......
  • 371 S.W.3d 824 (Mo.App. W.D. 2012), WD 72606, Harvey v. Director of Revenue
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • May 9, 2012
    ...cause based upon its assessment of th[e] evidence and the officer's own equivocation of the existence of probable cause." York, 186 S.W.3d at 272. As this Court later noted in Furne v. Director of Revenue, 238 S.W.3d 177, 180 (Mo.App. W.D.2007), " [t]hus, the [ York ] Court gave d......
  • 322 S.W.3d 610 (Mo.App. E.D. 2010), ED 94471, St. Louis County v. Berck
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • October 12, 2010
    ...over the condemnation action. County cites the Supreme Court's ruling in State ex rel. Broadway-Washington Assocs., Ltd. v. Manners, 186 S.W.3d 272 (Mo. banc 2006), as support for its claim that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and was required to dismiss the condemnation action after fi......
  • 412 S.W.3d 459 (Mo.App. S.D. 2013), SD 32419, Letterman v. Director of Revenue
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • October 28, 2013
    ...trial court to conclude that there was probable cause to arrest Letterman for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. See, e.g., York, 186 S.W.3d at 272 (although uncontested indicia of intoxication included " the smell of alcohol, the fact that York's eyes were watery, bloodshot and gl......
  • Free signup to view additional results
3 books & journal articles