Ferguson v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 56641,56641 |
| Citation | 783 S.W.2d 132 |
| Parties | Harry FERGUSON, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Harry Ferguson, St. Louis, pro se.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.
The Director of Revenue appeals a judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County reversing an order of suspension of driving privileges entered by an Administrative Hearing Officer of the Department of Revenue against licensee, Harry Ferguson. We vacate the trial court's judgment and reinstate the administrative order.
On November 5, 1988, Ferguson was operating his 1974 vehicle when he was stopped by the Maplewood Police Department. Ferguson failed to provide proof of insurance as required by § 303.025 RSMo 1986 (all references shall be to RSMo 1986 unless otherwise noted). On November 14, 1988, the Department of Revenue sent a notice to Ferguson stating that unless proof of financial responsibility was provided or an administrative hearing was requested, Ferguson's driving privileges would be suspended effective December 17, 1988. Ferguson requested a hearing, which was set on December 13, 1988. At the hearing, Ferguson testified that he was taking his vehicle to a repair shop to get it inspected before getting liability insurance, when he was stopped by the police. He concluded that the reason that he did not have insurance on the vehicle was because he did not use it during the year that the mandatory financial responsibility law had gone into effect. The vehicle needed repairs, and he let the insurance lapse.
The Administrative Hearing Officer concluded that Ferguson, by his own admission failed to comply with § 303.025, and that his driving privileges were to be suspended for a sixty day period beginning March 6, 1989. Ferguson filed a petition for review with the Circuit Court of St. Louis County on February 16, 1989. The trial court entered a stay order regarding the suspension and set trial for April 3, 1989. Following the hearing, the trial court entered an order setting aside the suspension of Ferguson's driving privileges. It is from this order that the Director of Revenue appeals.
On appeal, the Director of Revenue contends that the trial court erred in setting aside Ferguson's suspension of driving privileges because: (1) the Circuit Court of St. Louis County lacked subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) Ferguson had violated the provisions of § 303.025. Agreeing with the first point, we need not address the latter.
Section 303.290.2 provides in pertinent part that:
Any decision, finding or order of the director, under the provisions of this chapter shall be subject to review by appeal to the circuit court of the county of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benbrook v. Director of Revenue, 64853
...859 S.W.2d at 231. Without subject matter jurisdiction, any action taken by the circuit court is null and void. Ferguson v. Director of Revenue, 783 S.W.2d 132, 133 (Mo.App.1989). In addition, the prosecuting attorney's confession of judgment cannot vest the circuit court with subject matte......
-
Woolbright v. Director of Revenue
...be given the same meaning Missouri courts have given the similar venue provision of § 302.535, RSMo 1986. See Ferguson v. Director of Revenue, 783 S.W.2d 132 (Mo.App.1989); Pool v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., 824 S.W.2d 515 (Mo.App.1992). The Director principally relies on Pool, the ......
-
Seibuhr v. Wagner, 63569
...cannot be conferred by estoppel or consent, and the lack thereof can be raised for the first time on appeal. Ferguson v. Director of Revenue, 783 S.W.2d 132, 133 (Mo.App.1989). When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it can take no action other than to exercise its inherent power to......
-
Evans v. Director of Revenue, 64442
...Welch, 859 S.W.2d at 231. "Any action taken by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is null and void." Ferguson v. Director of Revenue, 783 S.W.2d 132, 133 (Mo.App.1989). Accordingly, the trial court's reinstatement of Driver's license was null and In response, Driver argues reversin......