Elevation Enters., LLC v. City of Springfield
| Decision Date | 08 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | SD 37129 |
| Citation | 646 S.W.3d 716 |
| Parties | ELEVATION ENTERPRISES, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, Missouri, et al., Defendants-Respondents, Galloway Village Neighborhood Association, et al., Intervenors-Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Attorneys for Appellants – Bryan O. Wade, Ginger K. Gooch of Springfield, MO.
Attorneys for Respondent Elevation – Jason C. Smith, Derek A. Ankrom, Benjamin J. Shantz of Springfield, MO.
Attorneys for Respondent City – Christopher M. Hoeman of Springfield, MO.
This appeal involves the rezoning of certain real property within the Galloway Village neighborhood (the "Property") sought by the Property's owner Respondent Elevation Enterprises, LLC ("Elevation") and granted by Respondent City of Springfield, Missouri (the "City"), through General Ordinance No. 6614 ("Ordinance 6614"). Ordinance 6614 was passed by the Council of the City of Springfield (the "City Council") on September 21, 2020, subject to the power of referendum, all pursuant to the processes and procedures set forth in the Springfield City Charter (the "City Charter") and Missouri statutes. Subsequently, on October 19, 2020, Appellants Galloway Village Neighborhood Association (the "Association") and several property owners in the Galloway Village neighborhood who own property located within 185 feet to 1600 feet of the Property (collectively, "Appellants") filed a referendum petition (the "Referendum Petition"), which was certified by the Clerk of the City (the "City Clerk") to the City Council on November 16, 2020. On November 30, 2020, the City Council reconsidered whether to repeal Ordinance 6614 (the City Council did not repeal it). On December 14, 2020, the City Council called a special election to place Ordinance 6614 on the August 3, 2021 ballot to be considered by the City's electors pursuant to the power of referendum.
On January 2, 2021, and before the election could occur, Elevation filed suit against the City, the City Clerk, the Mayor of the City, and members of the City Council (collectively, the "City Respondents") seeking, among other things, to permanently enjoin the election. Appellants sought and were permitted to intervene in the lawsuit and opposed the relief sought by Elevation. The City took the position that the law supported Elevation's request for injunctive relief. The key facts largely were undisputed (with the exception of Elevation's claims of irreparable harm and no adequate remedy at law), and Elevation, the City Respondents, and Appellants entered into a joint stipulation of facts three days before trial was to begin on May 17, 2021. In the stipulation, all parties agreed "that the following facts are true and unconverted":
Following trial to the court, the trial court entered judgment on May 25, 2021 (the "Judgment"), permanently enjoining the election set for August 3, 2021. The Judgment included "findings of fact" and "opinion" that stated in relevant part:
Appellants timely appealed the Judgment, and raise four points relied on. Appellants’ third point claims the "trial court erred in permanently enjoining the scheduled election on Ordinance No. 6614" because any conflict between the power of referendum as applied to Ordinance 6614 and Chapter 89 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri was not "ripe for review until after the election." We believe Appellants’ third point has merit and is dispositive of this appeal. As a result, we do not reach Appellants’ other three points. Point relied on three is granted because the trial court erred when it permanently enjoined the election before the issue of an alleged conflict between the power of referendum and Chapter 89 was ripe for review. The trial court's judgment is affirmed in limited part, and reversed as to the issuance of an injunction permanently enjoining the referendum election.
The standard of review in this action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief is the same as in any court-tried case: the judgment will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Dohogne v. Counts , 307 S.W.3d 660, 665-66 (Mo. App. 2010). ... [C]laims that the circuit court erroneously declared and applied the law.... are reviewed de novo. Adams v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London , 589 S.W.3d 15, 26 (Mo. App. 2019). To the extent this Court's review involves the interpretation of statutes and constitutional provisions, the Court construes the words used in those provisions according to their plain and ordinary meaning. StopAquila.org v. City of Peculiar , 208 S.W.3d 895, 902 (Mo. banc 2006).
Allsberry v. Flynn , 628 S.W.3d 392, 395 (Mo. banc 2021).
Generally Applicable Charter Provisions and Legal Principles
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Van McGibney v. Mo. Dep't of Natural Res.
...plain and ordinary meaning. StopAquila.org v. City of Peculiar , 208 S.W.3d 895, 902 (Mo. banc 2006). Elevation Enters., LLC v. City of Springfield , 646 S.W.3d 716, 720-21 (Mo. App. 2022) ( quoting Allsberry v. Flynn , 628 S.W.3d 392, 395 (Mo. banc 2021) ).Following a circuit court's judgm......