Schlarman v. City of St. Charles, 43107
| Decision Date | 29 September 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 43107,43107 |
| Citation | 623 S.W.2d 57 |
| Parties | George SCHLARMAN, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF ST. CHARLES, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
J. B. Carter, Clayton, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Keith Hazelwood, St. Charles, for defendant-respondent.
Plaintiffs filed an action to set aside two judgments of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County that authorized annexation of certain portions of highway right-of-way contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of St. Charles. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the City of St. Charles. On this appeal we affirm.
The plaintiffs are the occupants and holders of fee simple title to land adjoining the highway right-of-way outside of the corporate limits of the City of St. Charles.
Plaintiffs' primary contention is that the court erred in ruling that the Highway Commission was an inhabitant of the area proposed to be annexed because plaintiffs as the holders of the fee were the inhabitants and should have been made parties to the actions for annexation of the various segments of the highway right-of-way.
The procedure for annexation, § 71.015 RSMo 1953, requires among other things that the legislative body after certain determinations and public hearing pass an ordinance to annex the area selected. It then, as pertinent to our consideration of this case, provides that the governing body of the municipality file a declaratory judgment action which "shall be a class action against the inhabitants of such unincorporated area under the provisions of Section 507.070, RSMo.1949."
It has long been held that in the condemnation of real property for highway purposes, although the measure of damages is the fair market value of the land taken, 1 the condemnor obtains only an easement over the highway right-of-way. The fee remains with the adjoining property owners. State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. James, 356 Mo. 1161, 205 S.W.2d 534 (1947).
Plaintiffs argue that the recent case of City of St. Charles v. Schone, 569 S.W.2d 769 (Mo.App.1978) defines "inhabitants" as residents; that the Highway Commission cannot be considered as residing upon the highway; that plaintiffs as persons owning and residing upon land adjacent to the highway and thus holding the fee, subject to the easement, must be considered the inhabitants of the land to which the court authorized annexation in the two declaratory judgment actions.
We are of the opinion that plaintiffs have misread Schone, supra. As we read Schone the court held that as between the owners of certain apartment buildings and commercial establishments and the occupants of those buildings the occupants, or residents as referred to in the opinion, the latter were inhabitants within the meaning of the statute.
The words "inhabit" and thus "inhabitant" are much broader in scope than "reside" or "resident." Inhabit has been defined as:
"1: to occupy as a place of settled residence or habitat: live or dwell in ... 2a: to be at home in: ... OCCUPY ... b: to occupy, be present in, or be inside of in any manner or form ... to have residence in a place: DWELL, LIVE"
Webster Third New International Dictionary Unabridged 1969.
Viewed in the context of § 71.015 RSMo 1953 it is our opinion that it was the intent of the legislature to require the declaratory judgment to be brought against those persons who had the greatest present interest in the area sought to be annexed. The term inhabitant in this sense would be the occupant. The person having the present control over the area. It is obvious that the State of Missouri in the person of the Highway Commission has possession and control of the highway system. Plaintiffs have no rights to or upon the highways other than that which is common to all travelers upon the highways in this state.
We are not here called upon to determine whether the area separated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dodson v. City of Wentzville
...a plaintiff must show she has "some actual and justiciable interest susceptible of protection" by her suit. Schlarman v. City of St. Charles, 623 S.W.2d 57, 59 (Mo.App. 1981). In determining if Landowner has standing to challenge the annexation of the Burkemper property, we must her properl......
-
Guardianship of Montez, R-IV
...to maintain an action it must have some actual and justiciable interest susceptible of protection in the cause. Schlarman v. City of St. Charles, 623 S.W.2d 57, 59 (Mo.App.1981). Whether the school district has a legally protectable interest in the guardianship so as to confer standing upon......
-
State ex inf. Nesslage v. Village of Flint Hill
..."controls" that area and, to that extent, perhaps, could be said to be an inhabitant of the area. See, Schlarman v. City of St. Charles, 623 S.W.2d 57, 59 (Mo.App.1981). This is a weak argument, at best. Moreover, it is highly questionable whether the Highway Commission could vote in the an......
-
City of St. Peters v. State Highway Com'n, 43491
...intervenors have brought this appeal. On December 28, 1981 plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal on the basis of Schlarman v. City of St. Charles, 623 S.W.2d 57 (Mo.App.1981) handed down September 29, 1981. The Schlarman case held that owners of property abutting a highway have no standing......