Laiben v. State, 48173

Decision Date22 January 1985
Docket NumberNo. 48173,48173
Citation684 S.W.2d 943
PartiesGeorge Steven LAIBEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Robert Gerard Kister, Festus, for petitioner-appellant.

Marilyn G. Ruemmler, Pros. Atty., Hillsboro, for defendant-respondent.

KAROHL, Judge.

Petitioner-licensee filed an appeal for review of the revocation of petitioner's motor vehicle operator's license for a period of one year in the manner provided by Chapter 536, RSMo. on the authority of § 302.311, RSMo. 1978. After a hearing where the prosecuting attorney appeared on behalf of the Director of Revenue, the court denied relief and petitioner-licensee appeals.

Petitioner received a "NOTICE OF LOSS OF DRIVING PRIVILEGE, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE" printed form. The document bears the imprint of the seal of the Department of Revenue and directs the licensee to mail his license to the Driver's License Bureau. The notice indicates that appellant's privilege to operate a motor vehicle in Missouri has been revoked because appellant has received twelve or more points due to a second conviction of blood alcohol content in excess of ten-hundredths of one percent. § 302.302.1(8) RSMo Supp.1984. The Director of Revenue's name is stamped at the bottom of the notice. The notice does not clearly reflect that the action of revocation was that of the Director of Revenue in his official capacity as opposed to an action of the Missouri Department of Revenue.

The petition is styled, "In the Matter of George Steven Laiben, Petitioner." No other party is specifically designated. The caption indicates that Richard A. King, Director of Missouri Department of Revenue should be served. The petition alleges that "[o]n or about the 16th day of February 1983 the Department of Revenue sent Notice to Petitioner ... that Petitioner's Missouri Driver's License will be revoked, effective March 11, 1983." It also alleges, "[t]hat said action by the Department of Revenue, is without authority at law." Nowhere in the body of the petition is Richard A. King, Director of Missouri Department of Revenue specifically identified as a party. Reluctantly we conclude that the Director of Revenue has not been made a party to the petition. 1

It was held in Walsh v. Department of Revenue, 668 S.W.2d 648 (Mo.App.1984); Huffman v. Department of Revenue, 523 S.W.2d 107 (Mo.App.1975) and Shepherd v. Department of Revenue, 377 S.W.2d 525 (Mo.App.1964), that the Director of Revenue in his official capacity as a state officer has the ultimate duty and responsibility for the issuance, suspension and revocation of operator's licenses. It is the director in his official capacity and not the Department of Revenue who is a necessary party to these proceedings. Walsh, 668 S.W.2d at 649; Shepherd, 377 S.W.2d at 527. In view of these decisions the style for a petition for review under Chapter 536, as provided in § 302.311,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Jackson v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 21, 1995
    ...of Revenue, 827 S.W.2d 767 (Mo.App.S.D.1992); Patton v. Director of Revenue, 789 S.W.2d 882 (Mo.App.S.D.1990); Laiben v. State of Missouri, 684 S.W.2d 943 (Mo.App.E.D.1985); In re: Mulderig, 670 S.W.2d 182 (Mo.App.E.D.1984); Walsh v. Department of Revenue, 668 S.W.2d 648 (Mo.App.E.D.1984); ......
  • Ezenwa v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., WD
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 22, 1990
    ...under § 302.311--requires the joinder of the director as a necessary party at the trial, and hence on the appeal. Laiben v. State, 684 S.W.2d 943, 945 (Mo.App.1985). The litigation of the other of them--the application for hardship driving privilege under § 302.309.3--confers no status on t......
  • Munson v. Director of Revenue
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 13, 1990
    ...525, 526 (Mo.App.1964). See also Robinson v. Director of Revenue, 762 S.W.2d 872, 874 (Mo.App.1989) (dictum), and Laiben v. State, 684 S.W.2d 943, 945 (Mo.App.1985). The Director then reasons that Rule 52.04 requires his joinder, for he claims an interest related to the subject of the actio......
  • Patton v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., 16538
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 29, 1990
    ...court had denied relief anyway, it was necessary only to dismiss the appeal. Shepherd has been consistently followed. Laiben v. State, 684 S.W.2d 943 (Mo.App.1985); Matter of Mulderig, 670 S.W.2d 182 (Mo.App.1984); Walsh v. Department of Revenue, 668 S.W.2d 648 (Mo.App.1984); Huffman v. Dep......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT