In Re: Organ. Of Tipton Rural Fire Protection District, v. The Objectors
| Decision Date | 28 November 2000 |
| Citation | 34 S.W.3d 404 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) . In Re: Organization of Tipton Rural Fire Protection District, Pursuant to Chapter 321, RSMo, Appellant, v. The Objectors, et al., Respondents. Case Number: WD58192 Missouri Court of Appeals Western District Handdown Date: |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Moniteau County, Hon. Mary P. Dickerson
Counsel for Appellant: Robert Angstead
Counsel for Respondent: Kenneth O. McCutcheon
Opinion Summary:
This appeal involves a dispute between two newly organized rural fire protection districts over an area that each claims belongs in their district. Appellants Tipton Rural Fire Protection District and the Fortuna Fire Protection District each filed a petition to organize that included the land in dispute. The Respondents are landowners that do not want their land to be included in the Tipton Fire District.
AFFIRMED.
Court holds:
(1) Section 321.300.2(1), RSMo Cum. Supp. 1997, did not repeal the doctrine of prior jurisdiction with regard to fire protection districts.
(2) The order creating the Tipton Fire District excluded the land in dispute.
(3) Since the time frame in which to timely appeal the circuit court's order had ended, the judgment of the trial court finding that the land in dispute could not be the proper subject of an annexation into the Tipton Fire District is affirmed.
This appeal involves a dispute between two newly organized rural fire protection districts over an area that each claims belongs in their district. The Appellant, Tipton Rural Fire Protection District (Tipton Fire District) and the Fortuna Fire Protection District (Fortuna Fire District) each filed a petition to organize that included the land in dispute. The Respondents (Objectors) are landowners that do not want their land to be included in the Tipton Fire District. Because this court finds that (1) section 321.300.2(1), RSMo Cum. 1997, did not repeal the doctrine of prior jurisdiction with regard to fire protection districts; (2) the order creating the Tipton Fire District excluded the land in dispute; and (3) the time frame in which to timely appeal the circuit court's order had ended, the judgment of the trial court finding that the land in dispute could not be the proper subject of an annexation into the Tipton Fire District is affirmed. On July 2, 1998, a petition to organize the Tipton Fire District was filed in the Circuit Court of Moniteau County. On August 3, 1998, a petition in protest of the petition to organize the Tipton Fire District was also filed in Moniteau County. The petition in protest sought to exclude the land in dispute from the proposed district, which was described in an exhibit attached to the petition. Following a hearing, the circuit court issued an order on August 25, 1998, creating the Tipton Fire District, subject to an election. The order excluded the property in dispute that was described in the exhibit attached to the petition in protest.
Meanwhile, on September 18, 1998, a petition was filed for the creation of the Fortuna Fire District in the Circuit Court of Morgan County. Included in the boundaries of the proposed Fortuna Fire District was the property in dispute that was excluded in the order creating the Tipton Fire District.
On November 3, 1998, an election was held and a majority voted in favor of creating the Tipton Fire District. The Circuit Court of Moniteau County subsequently issued an order declaring the incorporation final and conclusive. Voluntary petitions were filed in late November, attempting to have the land in dispute included in the Tipton Fire District. Objections to the inclusion of this land in the Tipton Fire District were also filed. On December 3, 1998, December 10, 1998, and January 7, 1999, the Board of the Tipton Fire District met to consider the voluntary petitions for annexation of the land in dispute into the Tipton Fire District. On January 7, 1999, the Tipton Fire District Board issued an order approving the annexation of the land in dispute. Appeals of the Board's order were filed in Moniteau County.
On January 15, 1999, a hearing was held on the petition to establish the Fortuna Fire District. The Circuit Court of Morgan County issued an order approving the incorporation of the Fortuna Fire District and scheduled an election. The election was held on April 6, 1999, and a majority of the voters approved the establishment of the Fortuna Fire District. On April 27, 1999, the Circuit Court of Morgan County entered its judgment declaring the January 15, 1999, order incorporating the Fortuna Fire District final and conclusive.
On April 8, 1999, the Tipton Fire District filed a motion requesting the Circuit Court of Moniteau County to enter an order including the land in dispute in the Tipton Fire District. An amended motion was filed on April 28, 1999. A hearing was held on the amended motion on November 24, 1999, and on January 28, 2000, the Circuit Court of Moniteau County entered an amended judgment granting the Tipton Fire District all lands located in Cooper County and denying any of the land that was included in the Fortuna Fire District incorporation, finding that the Tipton Fire District did not have jurisdiction to annex the land and that the Board's order including those lands was unauthorized by law. The amended judgment reads, in pertinent part:
[T]hose lands that were included in the petition to incorporate the Fortuna Fire Protection District filed September 18, 1998, and the subsequent order could not be the proper subject of an annexation in Tipton Rural Fire Protection District until Fortuna excluded them from its case. The action filed first has jurisdiction to the exclusion of any subsequent filed action regardless of which terminates first.
Therefore, the Court finds that the Board's actions were not authorized by law and [its] petition is denied in all respects to the property located within the boundaries of the Fortuna Fire Protection District.
* * * *
The Tipton Fire District appeals.
This court will review the judgment of the trial court based upon the standard set forth in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). This court will sustain the judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law. Id.
The Tipton Fire District argues in its first point that the trial court erred in ruling that the land in dispute could not be the proper subject of an annexation by the Tipton Fire District until the Fortuna Fire District excluded it from its proceeding because the doctrine of prior jurisdiction is no longer applicable to fire protection districts under the 1997 amendment to section 321.300.2(1).
Section 321.300 sets forth the procedure for changing the boundaries of a fire protection district. Prior to the 1997 amendment, section 321.300, RSMo 1994, read, in pertinent part:
2. The boundaries may be changed as follows:
(1) Seventy-five percent of the owners of any territory or tract of land near or adjacent to a fire protection district who own not less than fifty percent of the real estate in such territory or tract of land and not located within only a part of any municipality or another fire protection district may file with the board a petition in writing praying that such real property by included within the district[.] (Emphasis added.)
After the 1997 amendment section 321.300 reads:
2. The boundaries may be changes as follows:(1) Twenty-five percent of the number of voters who voted in the most recent gubernatorial election in the area to be annexed may file with the board a petition in writing praying that such real property be included within the district[.]
The Tipton Fire District argues that prior to the 1997 revision, section 321.300.2(1) expressly precluded individuals that were part of an existing fire protection district from petitioning to change their boundaries to be a part of an adjacent fire district. The Tipton Fire District claims that the 1997 amendment expressly removed the requirement that property not be within an existing fire protection district in order to qualify for annexation into another district, and as such did away with the prior jurisdiction doctrine with regard to fire protection districts.
The objectors, on the other hand, argue that section 321.300.2(1) both before and after the 1997 amendment contains the procedure that must be followed by persons petitioning to be included in a fire protection district that do not currently reside in an existing fire protection district. The objectors claim that if persons residing in an existing fire protection district want to join a new or different fire protection district, they must file a petition under section 321.310, RSMo 1994, obtain an order of exclusion to be excluded from the district they are currently in, and then bring a petition under section 321.300.2 for inclusion of their land in a new or different fire protection district. The objectors maintain that this construction of section 321.300.2(1) and section 321.310 shows that the statutes and the prior jurisdiction doctrine provides a "harmonious and consistent method to exclude lands from one fire protection district and include the same lands in another fire protection district."
Both parties maintain that a statutory construction will resolve whether the prior jurisdiction doctrine is still viable in determining fire protection district property disputes. Although the process provided under Chapter 321 for the creation, change and exclusion of property in fire protection districts is circular and confusing, it is up to the legislature to resolve the inconsistencies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newbold v. BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, WD 58407.
... ... Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District ... November 7, 2000 ... Motion for Rehearing ... ...