Rish v. Peters
| Decision Date | 22 May 2001 |
| Citation | 50 S.W.3d 814 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. S.D. 2001) William "Skip" Rich, Appellant/Respondent v. Eric Peters, Mike Forck and Donald Stockman, In their Capacity as Cole County Commissioners, Respondents/Appellants. WD58869/WD58893 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cole County, Hon. Glenn A. Norton
Opinion Summary: Eric Peters, Mike Forck, and Donald Stockman, in their capacity as Cole County Commissioners, appeal the trial court's judgment declaring that Cole County Collector William "Skip" Rich was entitled to additional compensation for collecting municipal taxes for Jefferson City from 1988 through 1998. The Commissioners claim that the award of additional compensation violates certain statutory provisions that (1) prescribe the total amount of compensation a county collector can earn; and (2) require that all fees collected by a county collector be deposited in the county general revenue fund. Mr. Rich cross-appeals the trial court's denial of his request for pre-judgment interest.
Division One holds: (1) The trial court did not err in declaring that Mr. Rich was entitled to additional compensation for collecting municipal taxes for Jefferson City from 1988 through 1996. Section 50.332, RSMo 2000, specifically allows county officers in all counties except first-class charter counties to contract with a municipality to perform the same type of duties for the municipality as the officer was performing with the municipality, and to keep any compensation under the contract in addition to all other compensation. Therefore, from 1988 through 1996, while Cole County was a second class county, Mr. Rich was entitled to $4000 in annual compensation pursuant to his contract to collect taxes for Jefferson City.
(2) The trial court did not err in declaring that Mr. Rich was entitled to additional compensation for collecting municipal taxes for Jefferson City for 1997 and 1998. After Cole County became a first class county in 1997, Mr. Rich's contract with Jefferson City could be governed by either section 50.332, RSMo 2000, or section 52.320.2, RSMo 2000. Since Cole County was a party to the contract, Mr. Rich's contract continued to be governed by section 50.332, RSMo 2000; therefore, he was entitled to $4000 in annual compensation under the contract and was not subject to the $3000 limit contained in section 52.320.2, RSMo 2000.
(3) The trial court erred in denying Mr. Rich's claim for prejudgment interest. Section 408.020, RSMo 2000, does not require a creditor seeking prejudgment interest on moneys due and payable under a written contract to make a demand for payment before interest will begin to accrue. Therefore, Mr. Rich is entitled to prejudgment interest on the $4000 annual compensation due under the contract for each of the years 1988 through 1998.
Eric Peters, Mike Forck, and Donald Stockman, in their capacity as Cole County Commissioners (Commissioners), appeal the trial court's judgment declaring that Cole County Collector William "Skip" Rich is entitled to additional compensation for collecting municipal taxes for Jefferson City from 1988 through 1998. The Commissioners claim that the award of additional compensation violates certain statutory provisions that (1) prescribe the total amount of compensation a county collector can earn; and (2) require that all fees collected by a county collector be deposited in the county general revenue fund. Mr. Rich cross-appeals the trial court's denial of his request for pre-judgment interest. Because this court finds that section 50.332, RSMo 2000,1 allowed Mr. Rich to be compensated, pursuant to a contract, for collecting Jefferson City's municipal taxes from 1988 through 1998, the portion of the trial court's judgment awarding him $4000 in annual compensation for those years is affirmed. Since this court finds that Mr. Rich was entitled to prejudgment interest on his claim, however, the portion of the trial court's judgment denying Mr. Rich's claim for prejudgment interest is reversed and remanded with instructions to the trial court.
Mr. Rich has been the duly-elected collector of Cole County since June 1, 1977. On May 4, 1983, Mr. Rich entered into an agreement with Jefferson City, Cole County, and Stanley C. Diemler, then clerk of Cole County, in which Mr. Rich agreed to collect the real and personal property taxes, and the merchants' and manufacturers' taxes for Jefferson City. Under the agreement, Cole County was to retain 1% of the revenue Mr. Rich collected on behalf of Jefferson City. Out of the 1% retained by Cole County, Mr. Rich was to receive $4000 annually as compensation for his services. The contract had a term of one year, beginning on March 1, 1983, but would automatically renew on March 1 of each subsequent year unless either party notified the other party in writing of its desire to terminate the agreement.
As neither party has indicated its desire to terminate the agreement, Mr. Rich continues to provide collection services for Jefferson City, and Cole County continues to retain 1% of the revenue Mr. Rich collects on behalf of Jefferson City. From 1988 to 1998, however, Mr. Rich did not receive any payment from Cole County for the collection services he provided for Jefferson City pursuant to the 1983 agreement.
In 1999, Mr. Rich filed suit against the Commissioners in which he sought a judgment from the court declaring that he was entitled to receive $4000 in annual compensation for collecting municipal taxes on behalf of Jefferson City for calendar years 1988 through 1996, and $3000 in annual compensation for providing those services for calendar years 1997 and 1998, after Cole County became a first-class county. Mr. Rich asked that the court order the Commissioners to pay him those amounts, plus interest. Mr. Rich also asked that the court declare the statutes upon which the Commissioners relied to deny him this compensation void as applied to him because they violate the constitutional prohibition against the impairment of contracts.
In their answer, the Commissioners denied that Mr. Rich was entitled to any compensation for collecting municipal taxes for Jefferson City from 1988 through 1998. The Commissioners first contended that pursuant to section 52.269.4, RSMo Supp. 1987, all fees collected by the collector had to be deposited into the county general revenue fund. Second, they alleged that the agreement was void and illegal by reason of the repeal of section 52.420, RSMo 1986, a statute that provided for compensation for second-class county collectors who collected municipal taxes. Finally, they claimed that even though Cole County became a first-class county in 1997, and, pursuant to section 52.320.2, collectors in first-class counties may receive additional compensation in the amount of $3000 for collecting municipal taxes, such compensation would have constituted a pay increase during Mr. Rich's term of office and thus would have violated Article VII, Section 17 of the Missouri Constitution.
The parties subsequently filed a stipulation of facts and trial briefs. On June 28, 2000, the trial court entered a judgment declaring that the Commissioners had breached the 1983 agreement by failing to pay Mr. Rich the amounts due under the contract for the years 1988 through 1998. The court further found that the agreement was not affected in any way by the repeal of section 52.420, RSMo 1986, and the 1987 amendment to section 52.269. Finally, the court found that continuing to pay Mr. Rich the amounts contracted for under the agreement for the calendar years 1997 and 1998, after Cole County became a first-class county, did not amount to an unconstitutional increase in pay during his term of office. The court ordered that the Commissioners pay Mr. Rich $4000 per year in compensation for the years 1988 through 1998, for a total of $44,000. The court specifically denied Mr. Rich's claim for prejudgment interest. Both the Commissioners and Mr. Rich appealed.
This court reviews a declaratory judgment under the standard applicable to other court-tried cases. Vocational Servs. Inc. v. Developmental Disabilities Res. Bd., 5 S.W.3d 625, 629 (Mo. App. 1999). Therefore, this court will affirm the trial court's judgment unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). Because the parties have stipulated to the facts, the only question before this court "is whether the trial court drew the proper legal conclusion from the facts." Perry State Bank v. Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co., 953 S.W.2d 155, 157 (Mo. App. 1997).
for 1988 Through 1996
This court will first address the Commissioners' two points on appeal regarding Mr. Rich's entitlement to compensation before addressing Mr. Rich's point regarding his entitlement to prejudgment interest. In their first point, the Commissioners contend that the trial court erred in finding that Mr. Rich is entitled to compensation, pursuant to the 1983 agreement, in the amount of $4000 per year for the collection of Jefferson City's municipal taxes from 1988 through 1996. The parties do not dispute that, between 1983 and 1986, Mr. Rich was entitled to and received, under the 1983 agreement, $4000 in compensation in exchange for collecting municipal taxes on behalf of Jefferson City. In 1987, Jefferson City adopted a charter form of government. At that time, Cole County was a second-class county. Section 52.420.3, RSMo 1986, set the amount of compensation for a county collector in a second-class county who contracted with a charter city to collect municipal taxes on behalf of that city:
In all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Anderson v. Ken Kauffman & Sons Excavating
...statute prevails over the general statute.'" Ricketts v. Ricketts, 113 S.W.3d 255, 258 (Mo.App. W.D.2003) (quoting Rich v. Peters, 50 S.W.3d 814, 819 (Mo.App. W.D.2001)) (internal citation omitted). Since § 287.110.1 and § 287.120 cannot be harmonized otherwise, the more specific statute, §......
-
Emmenegger v. Bull Moose Tube Co.
...for breach of contract accrues "from the date of the breach or the time when payment was due under the contract," Rich v. Peters, 50 S.W.3d 814, 823 (Mo.Ct.App.2001) (quoting Wulfing v. Kansas City Southern Indus., Inc., 842 S.W.2d 133, 160 (Mo.Ct.App.1992)), not from the time when suit for......
-
Gaudreau v. Barnes
...not motions to modify. However, we emphasize that notices of intent to relocate are not motions for modification. See Rich v. Peters, 50 S.W.3d 814, 820 (Mo.App.W.D.2001) (“Consistent with the principles of statutory construction, such an interpretation reconciles the two statutes, and give......
-
Scott v. Ssm Healthcare St. Louis
...the intended statutory meaning. We presume that the legislature did not insert superfluous language in a statute. Rich v. Peters, 50 S.W.3d 814, 819-820 (Mo.App. W.D.2001). Point III is 4. Denial of Hospital's Motion for Remittitur on Damages Awarded to Josephine Scott In its fourth point, ......