Bloom v. Missouri Bd. for Architects, Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors

• Decision Date: 23 November 1971
• Docket Number: No. 34067,34067
• Citation: 474 S.W.2d 861
• Parties: Martin J. BLOOM, Applicant-Appellant, v. The MISSOURI BOARD FOR ARCHITECTS, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS, Respondent-Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 861

474 S.W.2d 861

Martin J. BLOOM, Applicant-Appellant, v. The MISSOURI BOARD FOR ARCHITECTS, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS, Respondent-Respondent.

No. 34067.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri.

Nov. 23, 1971.

Motion for Rehearing or for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied

Jan. 3, 1972.

Ackerman, Schiller & Schwartz, Clayton, for applicant-appellant.

Bialson, Corrigan, Murray & Ebert, St. Louis, for respondent-respondent.

DOERNER, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County reversing an order of the Administrative Hearing Commission, which order directed the Board, formerly named the State Board of Registration for Architects and Rpofessional Engineers, Laws of 1969, p. 452, to issue a certificate of registration as an architect to Martin J. Bloom, the applicant. We affirm.

In 1965, the applicant, a registered engineer who was a resident of Missouri, made an application to the authorities in Nebraska for a certificate of registration as an architect. He was permitted to take the written examination given in that state, which he passed, and was granted a Nebraska certificate as an architect in December, 1965. On July 11, 1966, applicant made application to the Missouri Board of a Missouri certificate of registration as an architect, on the basis of reciprocity. After a hearing the Board, on March 13, 1968, denied the applicant's application on the grounds:

'A) Said applicant is not entitled as a matter of right to be registered as an architect in the State of Missouri pursuant to Section 327.100, V.A.M.S.

B) Applicant's educational and experience backgrounds do not qualify him under Sections 327.030 and 327.110 V.A.M.S.'

Thereafter the applicant sought a review by the Administrative Hearing Commission of the Board's decision, and a hearing before the Commission was held on June 18, 1968. The Commission held that the Board's '* * * denial of petitioner's application for reciprocal registration was unauthorized by law, in excess of their statutory authority and was arbitrary and capricious.' And it ordered the Board to '* * * issue to Martin J. Bloom a certificate of registration authorizing him to legally practice architecture in Missouri.'

Within 30 days after the Commission's decision the Board, on December 24, 1968, filed its petition in the Circuit Court seeking a reversal of that decision. The cause came on for hearing on May 19, 1969, and on October 12, 1970, the court entered a judgment reversing the decision of the Commission and reinstating the order of the Board. On October 21, 1970, applicant filed his motion for a new trial, or in the alternative for judgment in his favor, which the court overruled on November 20, 1970. Applicant's appeal followed.

The decisive question presented in this appeal is whether the Board is required, as a matter of law, to issue a Missouri certificate of registration as an architect to applicant solely for the reason that applicant was granted such a certificate by Nebraska. In its conclusions of law the Administrative Hearing Commission quoted Section 327.100 and a pertinent portion of Section 327.030. It is obvious that in holding that the Board was '* * * unauthorized by law * * *' to deny applicant's application '* * * for reciprocal registration * * *' the Commission interpreted those sections as making it mandatory upon the Board to issue a Missouri certificate to the applicant merely because Nebraska had issued such a certificate to him. From its judgment it is likewise obvious that the trial court's construction of those statutes was to the contrary.

Section 327.100 reads:

'1. Exchange or reciprocal registration may be granted to any registered architect or registered professional engineer of another state, territory or possession of the United States or of any country, on the same terms and under the same conditions as the officer or officers of such other state, territory, possession or country, authorized by law to register architects and professional engineers, will grant exchange or reciprocal registration to a resident architect or professional engineer registered by the board; provided, the qualifications and experience of the applicant, as shown by the certificate of the registering authority of such other state, territory, possession or country, are equivalent to the requirements for initial registration in this state.

'2. The board is hereby authorized to negotiate and effect arrangements with the appropriate officers of other states, territories, possessions and countries, to facilitate such exchange or reciprocal registration.'

The pertinent part of Section 327.030 provides:

'1. Any citizen of the United States of America, Alaska, Hawaii or Puerto Rico, over the age of twenty-one years and of good moral character, shall be registered by the board, on recommendation of its architectural division and payment of the fee required by law, if he shall claim in his application to be, and show to the satisfaction of the architectural division that he is, qualified for such registration under any of the following subdivisions of this subsection:

'(3) That he is qualified for registration under any rule of comity or reciprocity on the filing of the official certificate of another state registration authority showing that he is qualified for registration under any such rule.'

By Section 327.010 the General Assemply declared the purpose and intent of Chapter 327 to be as follows:

'In the enactment of this chapter it is hereby declared to be the intent and purpose of the general assembly to protect the inhabitants of this state in the enjoyment of life, health, peace, and safety, and to protect their property from damage or destruction through dangerous, dishonest, incompetent or unlawful architectural or professional engineering practice, and generally to...