Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Franklin v. Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Mo.
| Citation | 620 S.W.3d 210 |
| Decision Date | 06 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. SC 98442,SC 98442 |
| 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. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
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.
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.
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:
| 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 Franklin County to appropriate and disburse the amount requested by the Twentieth Circuit in its proposed budget for the Juvenile Court and to retroactively pay the salaries and benefits for the two employees who worked exclusively for the Juvenile Court. The court of appeals issued its opinion February 11, 2020.
Thereafter, on February 18, 2020, the Franklin County Commission filed a petition for review with the JFC. The Franklin County Commission argued that, pursuant to section 211.393.6, Franklin County rightfully allocated only the MOE amount for the Juvenile Court. The Franklin County Commission also argued that, pursuant to sections 211.382 and 211.393.3(3), Franklin County rightfully ceased payment of compensation and benefits to the two employees working solely for the Juvenile Court. The Franklin County Commission further asserted it had good cause that warranted filing for review with the JFC outside the time limit in Court Operating Rule 12-9.05.
On February 24, 2020, the JFC ordered the petition dismissed, finding that the petition was untimely and that the JFC had no authority to grant the relief sought by the Franklin County Commission due to the writ issued by the court of appeals. The Franklin County Commission then filed its petition for review in this Court.
This Court reviews decisions by the JFC de novo. § 477.600.7. When reviewing decisions by the JFC, 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." Lincoln Cnty. Comm'n v. Forty-Fifth Jud. Cir. , 528 S.W.3d 357, 358 (Mo. banc 2017) (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted). The issues presented in this appeal, however, do not involve conclusions regarding the reasonableness of expenditures; therefore, this Court will not defer to the JFC's determinations.
The Franklin County Commission argues the JFC erred in two ways: (1) in dismissing its petition on the ground that the JFC lacked authority to hear the dispute, and (2) in dismissing its petition on the ground that it was untimely. Each will be addressed separately. If either finding by the JFC is correct, the JFC's decision to dismiss must be affirmed.
In its February 24, 2020 order, the JFC stated: "because of the existing superseding judgment and opinion of the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, in ED108658, the Judicial Finance Commission is without authority to act on the petition for review." The Franklin County Commission argues this was in error because the court of appeals did not address the merits of the dispute (i.e., whether Franklin County's funding obligations for the Juvenile Court portion of the Twentieth Circuit's budget was limited to the statutory MOE amount). Instead, the Franklin County Commission contends the court of appeals held only that the Twentieth Circuit was entitled to mandamus relief because the Franklin County Commission had not filed a petition for review with the JFC. The Franklin County Commission contends the court of appeals’ statement that "the JFC review is mandated and necessary" implies the ultimate resolution of the dispositive issue lies with the JFC and this Court on review. The Franklin County Commission also argues there is nothing in section 477.600 or the court operating rules providing that the JFC's authority can be disturbed by the court of appeals ruling on a writ petition.
The Franklin County Commission is correct: the court of appeals’ permanent writ did not strip the JFC of authority to hear the dispute. The JFC's authority is established entirely by statute and rule. The JFC is "the arbiter of budget disputes between county commissions and circuit courts." Lincoln Cnty. Comm'n , 528 S.W.3d at 358. It is given this authority by section 477.600 and Court Operating Rule 12. Nothing in the statute or in the court operating rule allows for decisions by the court of appeals (or any other court for that matter, except for this Court on appeal) to remove authority from the JFC to hear budget disputes. Here, the court of appeals did not expressly seek to rescind whatever authority the JFC had to resolve this dispute and it did not do so implicitly. The role of the court of appeals was merely to enforce the status quo. Only the JFC (and this Court) have authority to alter that status quo. Accordingly, the court of appeals’ issuance of the writ did not alter or rescind the JFC's authority to hear a timely petition by the Franklin County Commission.
Court Operating Rule 12-9.05 provides: "Except for good cause shown, a petition shall be filed according to the following schedule: (a) Counties of the first classification and charter counties, January 1...." Franklin County is a first-class county within the State of Missouri, so – absent good cause – the Franklin County Commission's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Franklin v. Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Mo.
...petition for review in this Court.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 ......