Lehmann v. Fox C-6 Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 16 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | WD 81432 |
| Citation | 564 S.W.3d 721 |
| Parties | Deborah LEHMANN, Respondent, v. FOX C-6 SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Kevin A. Thompson, Jefferson City, MO, Attorney for Respondent.
Celynda L. Brasher, James R. Layton, and Kylie S. Piatt, St. Louis, MO, Attorneys for Appellant.
Before Division Four: Karen King Mitchell, Chief Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge, and Jennifer M. Phillips, Special Judge
Fox C-6 School District appeals the entry of a declaratory judgment invalidating two District policies that partially formed the basis for a statement of charges to begin termination proceedings against District teacher Deborah Lehmann, as well as the grant of a permanent injunction precluding District from proceeding with Lehmann’s termination hearing. District raises two points on appeal. District argues that the policies were properly promulgated, contrary to the trial court’s determination, and that Lehmann was not entitled to injunctive relief because she has an adequate remedy at law. Because District substantially complied with § 171.011,1 the statute granting District authority to enact rules and regulations, the policies at issue are valid. Accordingly, the trial court erred in entering a declaratory judgment finding them invalid as well as a permanent injunction barring District from proceeding with the termination hearing on the basis of the policies, and its decision is reversed.
Lehmann is a certified speech-language pathologist, who has been employed by District for approximately twenty-five years.2 On October 4, 2017, District served Lehmann a Statement of Charges, alleging that Lehmann willfully and persistently violated and failed to obey District policies IGBA-1 and GBCB, related to Programs with Disabilities and Staff Conduct. Lehmann requested a hearing in response to the charges, and a hearing was set for October 28, 2017, but it was rescheduled to January 16, 2018. On November 27, 2017, under § 536.050, Lehmann filed a petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of Cole County,3 arguing that District lacked authority to seek her termination on the basis of policies IGBA-1 and GBCB because they constituted invalid regulations insofar as they were "policies" and not "regulations," and § 168.114.1(4) permits termination proceedings against a "permanent teacher" for the violation of only "published regulations of the board of education."4
The trial court held a hearing on Lehmann’s petition on January 11, 2018, wherein it received six exhibits from District, which consisted of the agenda and minutes of various District Board of Education meetings approving policies IGBA-1 and GBCB, as well as copies of the policies themselves. At the hearing, Lehmann conceded that, contrary to the argument in her petition, the validity of the policies did not turn on whether they were denominated "policies" or "regulations." Lehmann argued, for the first time however, that the policies were nevertheless invalid because District’s exhibits did "not show that [the policies] had been duly signed by the Board or that they were ever delivered to the district clerk or that they were transmitted by the district clerk to the teachers employed at the schools," and, she argued, "those [three] steps are required by Statute 171.011."5 But Lehmann also conceded that "posting on the [District’s] website is equivalent to transmitting forth with" and "that the district clerk is now embodied by the secretary to the superintendent or secretary to the school board." Thus, Lehmann’s sole basis for her argument that the policies were invalid was that District had not presented a signed copy of the policies.
After the hearing, the trial court issued a declaratory judgment indicating that policies IGBA-1 and GBCB were invalid because they failed to comply with the statutory requirement that they be signed. In so ruling, the trial court relied on Missouri Supreme Court case law interpreting § 536.021 and holding that a "rule promulgated in violation of § 536.021 is void." The trial court determined that, "[l]ikewise, [District] must comply with the relatively simple requirements of § 171.011, RSMo., in promulgating its regulations or its regulations are void." The trial court concluded that, because District appeals.
"When reviewing a declaratory judgment, our standard of review is the same as in any other court-tried case." Lueckenotte v. Lueckenotte , 34 S.W.3d 387, 393 (Mo. banc 2001). We "will affirm the decision of the trial court ‘unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law.’ " Id. (quoting Murphy v. Carron , 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976) ). We apply "de novo review to questions of law decided in court-tried cases." Pearson v. Koster , 367 S.W.3d 36, 43 (Mo. banc 2012). "With respect to such questions, ‘the appellate court reviews the trial court’s determination independently, without deference to that court’s conclusions.’ " Id. at 43-44 (quoting Moore v. Bi-State Dev. Agency , 132 S.W.3d 241, 242 (Mo. banc 2004) ).
District raises two points on appeal. First, District argues that the trial court erroneously declared the policies invalid as a result of District’s failure to strictly comply with § 171.011 because substantial compliance is all that is required. Second, District argues that the trial court erred in granting Lehmann a permanent injunction because Lehmann failed to demonstrate that she lacked an adequate remedy at law and that she would suffer irreparable harm. Because District’s first point on appeal is dispositive, we do not reach the second point.
"In actions for declaratory judgment, the burden of proof ‘rests where it would have been placed had a different type of suit been brought.’ " Am. Family Mut. Ins. v. Coke , 413 S.W.3d 362, 368 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (quoting Universal Reinsurance Corp. v. Greenleaf , 824 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) ). Because "there exists, generally, a presumption that [governmental] acts have been performed in good faith and rightfully," State ex rel. Kugler v. Tillatson , 312 S.W.2d 753, 757 (Mo. banc 1958), "[t]he party challenging the validity of [a statute,] ordinance[, or rule] carries the burden of proving the [governmental body] exceeded its constitutional or statutory authority." Coop. Home Care, Inc. v. City of St. Louis , 514 S.W.3d 571, 578 (Mo. banc 2017). More specifically, when the issue raised is "whether proper statutory procedures were followed in the enactment" of regulations or policies, "[t]his evidentiary presumption ... allocates the burden of production and persuasion to the challenger." Smith v. Taney Cty. , 552 S.W.3d 745, 752 (Mo. App. S.D. 2018) ; see also Magenheim v. Bd. of Educ. of Sch. Dist. of Riverview Gardens , 347 S.W.2d 409, 419 (Mo. App. 1961) (). Accordingly, Lehmann bore the burden of proving that the policies at issue were invalid, and this burden never shifted to District. See Pearson , 367 S.W.3d at 47 ().
It appears from both the transcript and the judgment that the trial court mistakenly placed this burden upon District (the governmental body), rather than Lehmann (the challenger to the validity of the policies):
To continue reading
Request your trial