Client Serv. Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 September 2000 |
| Citation | 30 S.W.3d 194 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. E.D. 2000) Client Services, Inc., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education, Defendant/Appellant. ED77300 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Kenneth M. Romines
Counsel for Appellant: Susan D. Boresi
Counsel for Respondent: Richard H. Edwards and Brian Lee Harvell
Opinion Summary: In this action arising out of contract, plaintiff Client Services, a party to the contract, sought injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment against the other party to the contract, Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education, a state agency. The trial court awarded Client Services the attorney's fees it incurred bringing the lawsuit.
Division Five holds: A trial court has no authority to assess attorney's fees against the state in the absence of an express statute.
In this case we reverse the trial court's award of attorney's fees to a plaintiff in an injunction and declaratory judgment action against a state agency, which arose out of a contract dispute, because a trial court has no authority to assess attorney's fees against the state in the absence of an express statute.
Plaintiff, Client Services, Inc., is a Missouri corporation engaged in the collection of accounts and debts. Defendant, The Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education (the Board), is a state agency created pursuant to Article IV, Section 52 of the Missouri Constitution. An agent of defendant contracted with plaintiff in 1990 to collect certain delinquent student loans for the federal government.
In 1999 the parties became involved in a dispute about their rights and duties under this contract, and plaintiff filed a petition seeking injunctive relief and declaratory judgment against the Board. After the trial court entered a temporary restraining order against the Board and its agent, the parties entered into a consent judgment, which resolved all of the disputed issues except plaintiff's claim for its attorney's fees in the action. The parties submitted this claim to the trial court. The plaintiff sought attorney's fees under Section 527.100 RSMo (1994), claiming very unusual circumstances, and under Section 536.087 RSMo (1994), claiming that its lawsuit was an agency proceeding or a civil action arising therefrom. The trial court found that the Board's action triggering the lawsuit was not sanctioned by contract and was not justified. It awarded $9,168.75 in attorney's fees to plaintiff pursuant to Section 527.100.
On appeal, the Board contends that the trial court had no authority to award attorney's fees because the Board is a state agency and attorney's fees may be awarded against the state only when authorized by an express statute. It further argues that Section 527.100 does not provide that authority. Plaintiff has not filed a brief in this court. We agree with the Board.
It is well-settled that attorney's fees are not assessable as costs against the state in the absence of a statute that explicitly provides for such assessment. Baumli v. Howard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
V.M.B. v. Missouri Dental Board
...(1) "in an agency proceeding" or (2) a "civil action arising therefrom." § 536.087.1; Client Servs., Inc. v. Mo. Coordinating Bd. for Higher Educ., 30 S.W.3d 194, 195 (Mo. App. E.D.2000). V.M.B. claims that the declaratory judgment is a civil action arising from an agency proceeding because......
-
River Fleets, Inc. v. Creech
...to assess attorney's fees against the state in the absence of an express statute." Client Services, Inc. v. Missouri Coordinating Bd. for Higher Educ., 30 S.W.3d 194, 195 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000). River Fleets claims that it was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees under section Section 536.......
- LaBarge v. LaBarge, ED 77223.