Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Franklin v. Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Mo., SC 98442

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the CourtPaul C. Wilson, Judge
Citation620 S.W.3d 210
Parties The BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, State of Missouri, Tim Brinker, Presiding Commissioner, Todd Boland, First District Commissioner, David Hinson, Second District Commissioner, and Angela Gibson, Auditor of the County of Franklin, State of Missouri, Appellants, v. TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF the State of MISSOURI BY the Honorable I.I. LAMKE, Presiding Judge, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. SC 98442,SC 98442
Decision Date06 April 2021

620 S.W.3d 210

The BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF FRANKLIN, State of Missouri, Tim Brinker, Presiding Commissioner, Todd Boland, First District Commissioner, David Hinson, Second District Commissioner, and Angela Gibson, Auditor of the County of Franklin, State of Missouri, Appellants,
v.
TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF the State of MISSOURI BY the Honorable I.I. LAMKE, Presiding Judge, Respondent.

No. SC 98442

Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc.

Opinion issued April 6, 2021


The county was represented by Katrina L. Smeltzer of Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard PC in Kansas City, (816) 627-5332; and Kenneth R. Goleaner, Mark C. Piontek and Timothy C. Sansone of Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard PC in St. Louis, (314) 231-3332.

The circuit court was represented by Heidi Doerhoff Vollet, Dale C. Doerhoff and Shelly A. Kintzel of Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr PC in Jefferson City, (573) 635-7977.

Paul C. Wilson, Judge

This case involves a petition for review of a decision by the Judicial Finance Commission ("JFC") and concerns the JFC's order dismissing as untimely the Board of Commissioners of Franklin County's ("Franklin County Commission") underlying petition for review filed with the JFC. The Franklin County Commission argues its petition should not have been dismissed because it had good cause to file the petition well after the deadline set out in Court Operating Rule 12-9.05 and the JFC had authority to hear the dispute. The Twentieth Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri ("Twentieth Circuit") also has filed a motion for attorney fees with the Court for consideration in conjunction with defending the Franklin County Commission's petition. This Court has jurisdiction under article V, section 4 of the Missouri Constitution and pursuant to section 477.600.7.1 For the reasons set forth below, the JFC's dismissal of the Franklin County Commission's petition as untimely is affirmed, and the Twentieth Circuit's motion for attorney fees is overruled without prejudice.

Background

The Franklin County Commission and the Honorable I.I. Lamke ("Judge Lamke") of the Twentieth Circuit met in August 2019 to discuss the 2020 budget as required by section 50.642. The Franklin County Commission informed Judge Lamke during this meeting that Franklin County would provide only the statutorily required maintenance of effort ("MOE") funding for the Juvenile Division of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit ("Juvenile Court") and would no longer pay for the compensation to and benefits for two employees whose services were performed solely for the Juvenile Court.

When the Twentieth Circuit submitted its 2020 budget estimate shortly after this meeting, the budget included funding by Franklin County for the Juvenile Court in the amount of $716,346.15, which exceeded Franklin County's MOE amount of $333,523. The Twentieth Circuit's budget estimate for the Juvenile Court was divided into the following historically used departments:

620 S.W.3d 213
Juvenile Office (Dept. 285) $481,848.00
Juvenile Detention (Dept. 295) $80,100
Juvenile Diversion Grants (Dept. 296) $41,823.34
Family Court (Dept. 283) $112,575.00
TOTAL $716,346.34

When Franklin County approved and adopted its fiscal year ("FY") 2020 budget on December 31, 2019, its budget appropriated only $333,523 for the Juvenile Court, divided into the following historically used departments:

Juvenile Office (Dept. 285) $0
Juvenile Detention (Dept. 295) $0
Juvenile Diversion Grants (Dept. 296) $0
Family Court (Dept. 283) $333,523.00
TOTAL $333,523.00

After January 1, 2020, Franklin County refused to pay the Juvenile Court's regular expenses. These expenses included items that were in the budget estimate and for which Franklin County historically had paid, such as the cost to serve summonses and travel expenses for Juvenile Court employees. Judge Lamke attempted to resolve the situation through discussion with the presiding commissioner, but as of January 22, 2020, Franklin County had paid only $63 out of approximately $18,000 in submitted Juvenile Court expenses.

On January 27, 2020, the Twentieth Circuit filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the court of appeals challenging Franklin County's allotted 2020 budget for the Juvenile Court. The court of appeals entered a preliminary writ and, the day after the Franklin County Commission filed its answer and suggestions in opposition, made the writ permanent. This writ ordered...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Franklin v. Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Mo., SC 99010
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 12, 2021
    ...JFC decisions are reviewed de novo. Section 477.600.7; Bd. of Comm'rs of Cnty. of Franklin v. 20th Jud. Cir. of Mo. by Lamke , 620 S.W.3d 210, 214 (Mo. banc 2021). This Court "does not engage in any close reconsideration of the [JFC]’s conclusions with respect to reasonableness of circuit c......
  • The Bd. of Comm'rs of The Cnty. of Franklin v. Twentieth Judicial Circuit of State, SC99010
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 12, 2021
    ...Analysis JFC decisions are reviewed de novo. Section 477.600.7; Bd. of Comm'rs of Cnty. of Franklin v. 20th Jud. Cir. of Mo. by Lamke, 620 S.W.3d 210, 214 (Mo. banc 2021). This Court "does not engage in any close reconsideration of the [JFC]'s conclusions with respect to reasonableness of c......
2 cases
  • Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Franklin v. Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Mo., SC 99010
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 12, 2021
    ...JFC decisions are reviewed de novo. Section 477.600.7; Bd. of Comm'rs of Cnty. of Franklin v. 20th Jud. Cir. of Mo. by Lamke , 620 S.W.3d 210, 214 (Mo. banc 2021). This Court "does not engage in any close reconsideration of the [JFC]’s conclusions with respect to reasonableness of circuit c......
  • The Bd. of Comm'rs of The Cnty. of Franklin v. Twentieth Judicial Circuit of State, SC99010
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • October 12, 2021
    ...Analysis JFC decisions are reviewed de novo. Section 477.600.7; Bd. of Comm'rs of Cnty. of Franklin v. 20th Jud. Cir. of Mo. by Lamke, 620 S.W.3d 210, 214 (Mo. banc 2021). This Court "does not engage in any close reconsideration of the [JFC]'s conclusions with respect to reasonableness of c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT