Furlong Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas, No. WD 63248 (MO 2/22/2005)
| Decision Date | 22 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. WD 63248,WD 63248 |
| Parties | FURLONG COMPANIES, INC., Respondent, v. THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, The Honorable Justine Elisa Del Muro, Judge.
The City of Kansas City appeals from a judgment in mandamus directing that it grant a preliminary plat to Furlong Companies, Inc., and an award of damages against the City under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 arising from the denial of the plat. The City complains that the trial court improperly engaged in de novo case review applicable to uncontested case matters under the Administrative Procedure Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 536.150 (2000). The City contends that the proper review under the MAPA was more limited under the contested case procedures of Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 536.130 (2000). We agree but reverse and remand with directions for the trial court to remand the matter to the City because it failed to make written findings of fact and conclusions of law as required in a contested case.
On October 1, 1999, Furlong filed with the City Development Department ("City Staff") an application for a preliminary plat for an undivided piece of property in south Kansas City. The property was zoned for Intermediate Business, High Buildings, and comprises approximately 2.76 acres. Furlong intended to subdivide the property into three lots for commercial development.
On November 3, 1999, Furlong met with City Staff to receive comments on the plat application. City Staff reviewed Furlong's application and suggested conditions that needed to be met prior to approval. On December 7, 1999, at a public hearing, the City Staff recommended to the City Plan Commission that it approve the preliminary plat application subject to the conditions. Furlong agreed to all of the conditions of approval set forth by the City Staff. Notwithstanding the City Staff's recommendation, the Plan Commission voted to deny Furlong's plat application. No sworn testimony was taken at the Plan Commission hearing, nor was Furlong provided with the opportunity to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Furlong made no objection to the manner in which the Plan Commission proceedings were held. The Plan Commission did not issue findings and conclusions as to why Furlong's application was denied.
Furlong received no answer to his request as to why the City Plan Commission denied his application. City Staff told Furlong that they could not discuss the denial of his application "for fear of litigation." Furlong attempted to submit a revised preliminary plat reflecting compliance with the aforementioned conditions, but City Staff refused to accept it. Furlong then requested that the plat application be submitted to the City Council and on February 3, 2000, a proposed ordinance reflecting Furlong's preliminary plat application was introduced to the City Council for first reading.
On March 1, 8, 15, and 22 of 2000, a subdivision of the full City Council, the Planning, Zoning & Economic Development Committee (the "P&Z Committee"),1 held public hearings regarding approval of Furlong's preliminary plat. During the course of those hearings, the City Council heard testimony from area residents both in favor of and in opposition to the plat application. Witnesses testifying during the proceedings before the P&Z Committee were not sworn and Furlong was not allowed to cross-examine them. Furlong did not object to the manner of the proceedings. The City also requested a traffic study to analyze the effect of Furlong's proposed plat on the surrounding area. Furlong complied with the traffic study request and the study concluded that Furlong's plat would have little impact on the existing traffic system.
At the March 15, 2000, hearing the City requested more time and information in regard to the traffic study. On March 29, 2000, Furlong provided the P&Z Committee with a revised, more comprehensive traffic study which also concluded that Furlong's proposed plat would have little impact on traffic in the surrounding area. At the March 29 meeting the P&Z Committee voted the matter "off the docket," meaning that it would not be reviewed again for up to six months.
On April 13, 2000, the Chairman of the P&Z Committee called Furlong's preliminary plat ordinance out of Committee for docketing before the entire City Council. The Chairman stated that the City's legal counsel had informed various Council members that there was no legal basis for rejecting Furlong's application. On May 4, 2000, the City Council voted not to approve Furlong's preliminary plat by a vote of 9 to 4. No formal hearing occurred before the full City Council, and no other procedures before the entire City Council appear in the record. No findings of fact or conclusions of law were issued in regard to the City's denial of Furlong's preliminary plat.
Furlong filed suit against the City on May 9, 2000, seeking an order of Mandamus compelling the City to approve his plat application and also seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. After hearing evidence on Furlong's Mandamus claim, the trial court entered an order of Mandamus against the City on November 29, 2000, compelling the City to approve Furlong's plat application immediately and without undue delay. In so doing, the trial court expressly found that the City's action in denying Furlong's preliminary plat application was unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. Subsequently the trial court heard evidence on Furlong's additional claims for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. After reviewing the evidence regarding damages the trial court awarded Furlong $224,871 in actual damages and $148,435.20 for costs and attorney fees.
This court must affirm the judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it was against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, and all evidence and inferences to the contrary are disregarded. Patel v. Pate, 128 S.W.3d 873, 876 (Mo. App. 2004).
Preliminarily, we address Furlong's Motion to Dismiss the City's appeal for procedural defects appearing in the City's brief in violation of Rules 84.04(c), 84.04(e) and 84.04(i). While some of the claims in Furlong's motion appear meritorious, appeals should be decided on the merits if possible. State v. Westcott, 121 S.W.3d 543, 545 n.2 (Mo. App. 2003). This court retains the discretion to decide appeals, notwithstanding failure to comply with the rules of appellate procedure, when it prejudices neither respondent nor the court of appeals' review, Butterbaug v. Public Water Supply Dist. No. 12 of Jackson County, 512 S.W.2d 445, 447 (Mo. App. 1974), and when the issues presented are important. State v. Miller, 815 S.W.2d 28, 31 (Mo. App. 1991). Accordingly, we exercise our discretion to review the City's appeal in order to render a judgment on the merits.
I
This dispute between Furlong and the City Council is reviewable as an administrative action. The Missouri Administrative Procedures Act (Chapter 536) applies not only to state created agencies, but also to local governmental agencies created by "constitutional provision, statute, municipal charter provision or ordinance." State ex rel. Young v. City of St. Charles, 977 S.W.2d 503, 504 (Mo. banc 1998). Kansas City is a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Missouri. Thus, the MAPA applies to this dispute. Id.; See also Byrd v. Board of Curators of Lincoln Univ., 863 S.W.2d 873, 875 (Mo. banc 1993). Similarly, actions that are delegated by municipality to a board or retained to itself to enforce are administrative and reviewable under the MAPA. Wrenn v. City of Kansas City, 908 S.W.2d 747, 749 (Mo. App. 1995). Thus, the administrative decision of the City Council is also reviewable under the MAPA.
Because we find that this was a contested case under MAPA we must first consider whether Furlong's petition properly sought judicial review under Section 536.130. Furlong's action is denominated a "Petition for Mandamus and for Damages." The parties do not raise the issue of whether Mandamus was an appropriate procedure for Furlong to challenge the denial of his plat application; however, compliance with statutory procedures for seeking relief from administrative decisions is a jurisdictional matter that the court of appeals must consider sua sponte. Wrenn, 908 S.W.2d at 749. Failing to comply with statutory provisions regarding judicial review of an administrative decision deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at 751.
Under Section 536.100 any party who has exhausted all administrative remedies and is aggrieved by a final contested case decision is entitled to judicial review under the MAPA unless some other provision for review is provided by statute. There is no other provision for judicial review of a preliminary plat denial in the Kansas City Code or pursuant to Missouri statute. Under Section 536.110, a petition must be filed within thirty days after the mailing or delivery of notice of the agency's final decision; Furlong's petition met this deadline. Additionally, Furlong's "Mandamus" petition fulfills the requirements of a petition for judicial relief by pleading facts in support of each essential element of a petition for judicial relief, See Thomas v. City of Kansas City, 92 S.W.3d 92, 97 (Mo. App. 2002) (). Most importantly, mandamus has specifically been held as an available remedy for enforcing ministerial duties including the approval of preliminary plats, once all administrative remedies have been exhausted. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial