Proctor v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., s. 15372

Decision Date19 May 1988
Docket NumberNos. 15372,15373 and 15375,s. 15372
Citation753 S.W.2d 69
PartiesJerry Don PROCTOR, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant. Kenneth G. LINK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant. Larry Gene SNOW, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Herbert Douglas & Andrew Wood, Neosho, for plaintiffs-respondents in Nos. 15372 & 15373.

No respondent's brief in 15375.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Van M. Pounds, Jatha B. Sadowski, Special Asst. Attys. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.

GREENE, Presiding Judge.

These three appeals have been consolidated because of common issues of law and fact. In each case, the Director of Revenue, State of Missouri (Director) is attempting to appeal from the trial court's denial of motions to quash court orders granting limited driving privileges to the three captioned individuals whose driving privileges had been revoked by the Director, following convictions for alcohol-related traffic offenses.

We note a jurisdictional defect in each case which we find dispositive. Even though the issue has not been raised by any of the parties, it is our duty to determine the propriety of the appeals in question. Matter of Estate of Savage, 650 S.W.2d 346, 348 (Mo.App.1983).

In none of the underlying cases was the Director named as a party, or added as a party by order of the trial court. The statute which outlines the procedures for applying for, and receiving, a court order permitting one whose operator's or chauffeur's license has been suspended or revoked to apply for limited hardship driving privileges is § 302.309.3 1 The statute does not specify that the Director is a party to such proceedings, nor does the statute grant the Director the right to appeal an order granting limited hardship driving privileges. Since the underlying cases are civil in nature, Gothard v. Spradling, 561 S.W.2d 448, 449 (Mo.App.1978), any right to appeal is governed by the statutes and rules governing civil appellate procedure, as the right to appeal is purely statutory. Chura v. Bank of Bourbon, 674 S.W.2d 675, 677 (Mo.App.1984). Rule 81.01 provides that the right of appeal shall be as is provided by law. Section 512.020 provides that in order to appeal from a final judgment, one must be an aggrieved party. The word "aggrieved," as used in the statute, means " 'suffering from an infringement or denial of legal rights.' " Farrell v. DeClue, 382 S.W.2d 462, 466 (Mo.App.1964). Applying this terminology, we doubt if the Director is "aggrieved" in the strict legal sense of the word. Even if, for the sake of argument, we assume that he is, we find nothing in the record of the three cases showing the Director is, or ever was, a party to the underlying actions which were ex parte applications for limited hardship driving privileges.

For one to be a party to a civil lawsuit, as the term party is used in our statutes and rules, a person must not only have some actual and justiciable interest susceptible of protection, Hribernik v. Reorganized School District R-3, 276 S.W.2d 596, 598 (Mo.App.1955), but also must either be named as a party in the original pleadings, or be later added as a party, by appropriate trial court orders, through utilization of court rules and statutes regarding joinder of parties, interpleader, intervention, and other procedures authorized by Rule 52 and Chapter...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Munson v. Director of Revenue
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 13, 1990
    ...case to this Court on the ground that the opinion of the majority conflicted with existing law as enunciated in Proctor v. Director of Revenue, 753 S.W.2d 69 (Mo.App.1988). The appeals are now consolidated because of common issues of law and fact. The appeals are Respondent Prewitt filed a ......
  • Jean-Robert Nast By & Through His Guardian Jan Freeman v. Gateway Ambulance Serv., LLC, ED103102
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 26, 2016
    ...or be later added as a party by appropriate trial court orders.'" Wieners, 165 S.W.3d at 522, quoting Proctor v. Dir. of Revenue, 753 S.W.2d 69, 70 (Mo. App. S.D. 1988). Here, the trial court denied Appellant's oral Motion to Intervene, and therefore Appellant was not a party to the June 9,......
  • F.W. Disposal v. St. Louis Cty. Council
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 14, 2008
    ...pleadings, or be later added as a party by appropriate trial court orders." Wieners, 165 S.W.3d at 522 (quoting Proctor v. Dir. of Revenue, 753 S.W.2d 69, 70 (Mo.App. S.D.1988)). Motions filed after judgment by strangers to the record present nothing for the court to rule on. Sarich v. Mund......
  • Patton v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., 16538
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • May 29, 1990
    ...Revenue, like any other person, may be deemed or become a party to a trial proceeding has been stated elsewhere. Proctor v. Director of Revenue, 753 S.W.2d 69, 70 (Mo.App.1988). Furthermore, even an appearance by the prosecuting attorney purporting to be on behalf of the Director of Revenue......
  • 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