Palazzolo v. Director of Revenue, 54441
| Decision Date | 15 November 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 54441,54441 |
| Parties | Deno Anthony PALAZZOLO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Paul S. McNeill, Jr., State of Missouri, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Debra Carnahan, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
Earle B. Leadlove, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
The Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from the order of the trial court reinstating the driving privileges of petitioner, Deno Anthony Palazzolo. We reverse and remand.
Palazzolo's driving privileges were revoked for refusing to submit to a chemical test to determine the alcohol content of his blood while driving a motor vehicle in the City of St. Louis, Missouri. See Sections 577.020, RSMo (1986) and 577.041.1, RSMo (1986). On November 13, 1987, Director mailed Palazzolo notice of his loss of driving privileges. On December 22, 1987, Palazzolo filed his petition for review. See Section 577.041.2, RSMo (1986).
Director filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court overruled that motion and, after a hearing, ordered the reinstatement of Palazzolo's driving privileges.
Director's sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in overruling Director's motion to dismiss. Director contends that, because Palazzolo filed his petition for review late, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review Palazzolo's case.
Section 302.311, RSMo (1986) provides in pertinent part:
In the event an application for a license is denied or withheld, or in the event that a license is suspended or revoked by the director, the applicant or licensee so aggrieved may appeal to the circuit court of the county of his residence in the manner provided by chapter 536, RSMo, for the review of administrative decisions at any time within thirty days after notice that a license is denied or withheld or that a license is suspended or revoked....
See also Section 536.110.1, RSMo (1986). Section 302.515.2, RSMo (1986) provides that notice of suspension or revocation by the Director is deemed received three days after mailing, unless returned. If the petition is not filed within 30 days, the circuit court has no subject matter jurisdiction; and any relief granted to the petitioner is void. Randles v. Schaffner, 485 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Mo.1972); Frock v. Goldberg, 591 S.W.2d 271, 272 (Mo.App.1979).
Here, Director sent Palazzolo...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ezenwa v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., WD
...Romans v. Director of Revenue, 783 S.W.2d 894, 896 (Mo. banc 1990). That limitation of time is jurisdictional. Palazzolo v. Director of Revenue, 760 S.W.2d 190, 191 (Mo.App.1988). The judgment entered by the associate circuit judge on the petition does not adjudicate the separate count that......
-
Romans v. Director of Revenue, 72083
...A dissenting judge certified the case to this Court because of a conflict between the decision in this case and Palazzolo v. Director of Revenue, 760 S.W.2d 190 (Mo.App.1988), McGee v. Director of Revenue, 767 S.W.2d 630 (Mo.App.1989), and Keegan v. Director of Revenue, 769 S.W.2d 197 (Mo.A......
-
Pelloquin v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., 66610
...added). As Petitioner points out, there is dicta in Reid v. Director of Revenue, 772 S.W.2d 28 (Mo.App.1989) and Palazzolo v. Director of Revenue, 760 S.W.2d 190 (Mo.App.1988) which can be read to suggest that the three day period provided in § 302.515.2 applies to extend the date of filing......
-
Reid v. Director of Revenue, 55141
...matter jurisdiction after the 30 day period and any relief granted by the court after that time is void. Palazzolo v. Director of Revenue, 760 S.W.2d 190, 191 (Mo.App.1988). There is no apparent dispute that appellant's petition was filed more than thirty days after he received notice of th......