Battlefield Fire Protection Dist. v. City of Springfield, 79263
| Decision Date | 25 February 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 79263,79263 |
| Citation | 941 S.W.2d 491 |
| Parties | BATTLEFIELD FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Appellant, v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD and Scott Payne, Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Mathew W. Placzek, David E. Overby, Springfield, for Appellant.
Nancy K. Yendes, Springfield, for City of Springfield.
Theodore L. Johnson, III, Thomas M. Benson, Springfield, for Scott Payne.
Battlefield Fire Protection District ("Battlefield") appeals the trial court's dismissal of Battlefield's actions against the City of Springfield and Scott Payne, the Collector of Revenue for Greene County ("County Collector"), upon Springfield's and the County Collector's motions to dismiss. Battlefield's action against Springfield sought a declaratory judgment that Springfield's annexation of certain property in Greene County, Missouri did not follow proper procedures under § 71.012, RSMo 1994, and therefore the property remains under Battlefield's jurisdiction. Battlefield's action against the County Collector requests that he be enjoined from distributing tax revenue collected from the property in question to any entity other than Battlefield. After a panel of the Court of Appeals, Southern District, reversed the trial court, this Court granted transfer to address the question of Battlefield's standing to contest the annexation. We now affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In 1990, a residential subdivision called National Place was developed on the edge of Springfield. Part of National Place was in the city proper, and part in Greene County only. The part that lay in Greene County only was in the Battlefield Fire Protection District. The developer of National Place inserted into all buyers' deeds a restrictive covenant in which the buyer irrevocably agreed to future annexation by Springfield. Not coincidentally, Springfield agreed to provide sewer service for the development. In June 1994, the developer filed with Springfield a petition for annexation of National Place. With this petition the developer avowed that he was the lawful representative and agent of all fee owners of real property in the area to be annexed.
The Springfield City Council held a public hearing concerning the annexation on October 17, 1994, and on the same day passed an ordinance purporting to annex the property under § 71.012, RSMo 1994, pertaining to voluntary annexations. Section 71.012 provides a mechanism for voters of either the annexed area or the annexing area to object to annexation, but no one did. Battlefield, however, facing the loss of tax revenue from the annexed property, filed this action. The specific ground on which Battlefield sought to invalidate the annexation and enjoin the County Collector is that the petition presented by the developer was not signed by the owners of all fee interests of record in the area, as § 71.012.2(1) requires. In sustaining the defendants' motions to dismiss, the trial court held that Battlefield did not have standing as to Count I, and did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted in Count II.
When seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, the criterion for standing is whether the plaintiff has a legally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kinder v. Holden
...interest at stake in the outcome of the litigation." Ste. Genevieve Sch. Dist., 66 S.W.3d at 10 (citing Battlefield Fire Prot. Dist. v. City of Springfield, 941 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Mo. banc 1997)). "A legally protectable interest exists if the plaintiff is directly and adversely affected by th......
-
St. Louis Ass'n of Realtors v. City of Ferguson
...a legally protectable interest. Comm. for Educ. Equality v. State, 294 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Mo. banc 2009); Battlefield Fire Protection Dist. v. City of Springfield, 941 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Mo. banc 1997). A legally protectable interest exists only if the plaintiff is affected directly and adverse......
-
Byrne & Jones Enters., Inc. v. Monroe City R-L Sch. Dist.
...relief, the criterion for standing is whether the plaintiff has a legally-protectable interest at stake. Battlefield Fire Prot. Dist. v. City of Springfield, 941 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Mo. banc 1997). A legally-protectable interest exists if the plaintiff is directly and adversely affected by the......
-
State ex rel. Collector of Winchester v. Jamison
...S.W.3d 6, 10 (Mo. banc 2002). The personal interest at stake must be one that is “legally protectable.” Battlefield Fire Protection Dist. v. City of Springfield, 941 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Mo. banc 1997). A legally protectable interest exists if the plaintiff is affected directly and adversely by......