Nowden v. Div. of Alcohol & Tobacco Control
Decision Date | 12 June 2018 |
Docket Number | No. SC 96496,SC 96496 |
Citation | 552 S.W.3d 114 |
Parties | Grayland NOWDEN, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF ALCOHOL & TOBACCO CONTROL, Missouri Department of Public Safety, Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Nowden was represented by David J. Moen of David J. Moen PC in Jefferson City.
The division was represented by Deputy Solicitor Joshua Divine and Julie Marie Blake of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.
Grayland Nowden appeals from a circuit court’s judgment granting summary judgment in favor of the Missouri Department of Public Safety’s Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control and dismissing, with prejudice, Nowden’s first amended petition for review under chapter 5361 on the grounds Nowden failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Because the circuit court lacked authority to review the petition as pleaded, the judgment is affirmed.
In 2013, Nowden was working as a special agent with the Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control. After taking his state vehicle to be serviced, the Division opened an investigation when it was reported the vehicle contained prohibited items, such as bullets, condoms, and a bottle of non-alcoholic beer. Also located in the vehicle were unissued summonses and evidence bags containing unlogged evidence. Investigators further discovered envelopes for A&D Mini Mart utility services and Sam’s Club receipts for purchases of tobacco products to be sold at A&D Mini Mart. A&D Mini Mart is a store regulated by the Division.
Nowden admitted the items in the car were his. He also had a Sam’s Club card in his name on an A&D Mini Mart account. And he was a bookkeeper for A&D Mini Mart. He also admitted to inspecting A&D Mini Mart despite having a conflict of interest. Nowden was terminated following the Division’s investigation. The Division notified Nowden by letter he was terminated "subject to [his] right to appeal as set forth in Missouri Department of Public Safety’s Policy G-2." Enclosed with the letter was a copy of the department’s policy and a notification of disciplinary action dated October 1, 2013, advising Nowden his application for appeal must be submitted by October 8, 2013. Nowden did not submit his application for appeal until October 10, 2013. On November 4, 2013, the Division notified Nowden his appeal was untimely.
Nowden filed a complaint with the Administrative Hearing Commission on November 1, 2013, and sought a hearing before the Commission. The Commission dismissed Nowden’s complaint, finding Nowden was not a merit employee entitled to a hearing before the Commission and the Division had internal appeal procedures for its employees.
Subsequently, Nowden sought review of his termination in the circuit court. After being granted permission to amend his original petition, Nowden filed a first amended petition for review pursuant to § 536.100. In his first amended petition, Nowden alleges he had the right to appeal his termination to the Division and this appeal constituted a "contested case" providing for review in the circuit court pursuant to § 536.100. Nowden filed a second amended petition for injunctive relief and "non-contested case" review pursuant to § 536.150 upon being granted approval by the circuit court.2 Thereafter, Nowden filed a motion to withdraw his second amended petition, and the circuit court ordered the cause to proceed on the first amended petition. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The circuit court sustained the Division’s motion for summary judgment, overruled Nowden’s motion, and dismissed Nowden’s first amended petition with prejudice because Nowden failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.
Nowden appealed and, after opinion by the court of appeals, this Court transferred the case pursuant to article V, § 10 of the Missouri Constitution.
"The standard of review on appeal of summary judgment is de novo , and summary judgment will be upheld on appeal if there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Mo. Prosecuting Att'ys & Cir. Att'ysRet. Sys. v. Pemiscot Cty. , 256 S.W.3d 98, 102 (Mo. banc 2008). "[T]he trial court’s judgment may be affirmed on any basis supported by the record." Nail v. Husch Blackwell Sanders, LLP , 436 S.W.3d 556, 561 (Mo. banc 2014). In this appeal, Nowden makes several arguments alleging the circuit court erroneously applied the law in dismissing his first amended petition for review. However, the circuit court properly dismissed Nowden’s action because it lacked authority to review the Division’s administrative decision as a "contested case" pursuant to § 536.100 as alleged in the first amended petition.
When reviewing a governmental agency’s decision, this Court considers whether the matter before the agency was a "contested" or "non-contested case" to determine the scope of judicial review. Furlong Cos., Inc. v. City of Kan. City , 189 S.W.3d 157, 165 (Mo. banc 2006). The Missouri Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA) provides for judicial review in the circuit court for parties aggrieved by an administrative decision in two types of cases: contested and non-contested. Id. A contested case is "a proceeding before an agency in which legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after hearing." Section 536.010(4). The "law" requiring a hearing "includes any ordinance, statute, or constitutional provision that mandates a hearing." McCoy v. Caldwell Cty. , 145 S.W.3d 427, 428–29 (Mo. banc 2004). A non-contested case, although not defined by MAPA, is "a decision that is not required by law to be determined after a hearing." Furlong , 189 S.W.3d at 165.
"The classification of a case as ‘contested’ or ‘noncontested’ is determined as a matter of law." City of Valley Park v. Armstrong , 273 S.W.3d 504, 506 (Mo. banc 2009). The distinction between a contested and non-contested case is significant because the scope of judicial review is different. As explained in Furlong :
189 S.W.3d at 165 (internal citations omitted).
The Division contends the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lampley v. Mo. Comm'n On Human Rights
...circuit court is without authority to conduct contested case review for a noncontested case or vice versa. See Nowden v. Div. of Alcohol & Tobacco Control , 552 S.W.3d 114, 117 (Mo. banc 2018) ; McCoy v. Caldwell Cty. , 145 S.W.3d 427, 428–29 (Mo. banc 2004).With this distinction in mind, i......
-
Estes v. Bd. of Trs. of the Mo. Pub. Entity Risk Mgmt. Fund
...or not." Sisk v. Union Pac. R. Co. , 138 S.W.3d 799, 809 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (quotation omitted); see also Nowden v. Div. of Alcohol & Tobacco Control , 552 S.W.3d 114, 116 (Mo. banc 2018) ("[T]he trial court's judgment may be affirmed on any basis supported by the record." (quotation omit......
-
Metro Fill Dev., LLC v. St. Charles Cnty.
...for contested cases (Sections 536.100 to 536.140) and those for non-contested cases (Section 536.150). Id. ; Nowden v. Div. of Alcohol & Tobacco Control , 552 S.W.3d 114, 116–17 (Mo. banc 2018). Whether an administrative proceeding is a contested or a non-contested case is a matter of law. ......
-
Holden v. Department of Commerce and Insurance
...courts have jurisdiction to conduct judicial review of both contested and non-contested cases. See Nowden v. Div. of Alcohol & Tobacco Control , 552 S.W.3d 114, 118 n.3 (Mo. 2018). However, the standard of review, record, and procedures under which a circuit court conducts its review differ......