St. Louis Ass'n of Realtors v. City of Ferguson

• Decision Date: 25 October 2011
• Docket Number: No. SC 91640.,SC 91640.
• Citation: 354 S.W.3d 620
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: ST. LOUIS ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, Appellant, v. CITY OF FERGUSON, Respondent.

354 S.W.3d 620

ST. LOUIS ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, Appellant,

v.CITY OF FERGUSON, Respondent.

No. SC 91640.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

Oct. 25, 2011.

Stephen C. Murphy, Joseph F. Devereaux III, Devereaux Murphy LLC, Clayton, for the association.

Stephanie E. Karr, Kevin M. O'Keefe, Edward J. Sluys, Curtis, Heinz, Garrett & O'Keefe PC, Clayton, for the city.

LAURA DENVIR STITH, Judge.

The St. Louis Association of Realtors appeals the dismissal, for lack of standing, of its declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of certain sections of the city of Ferguson's municipal code. Because this Court finds that the association has satisfied the requirements for associational standing by showing that at least one of its members would have standing to sue, that the interests the suit seeks to protect are germane to the association's purpose, and that neither the claim asserted nor relief requested requires the participation of individual members in this lawsuit, the judgment is reversed and the case remanded.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2006, Ferguson enacted an ordinance that, as relevant here, created a regulatory fee and licensing system for owners of residential property within Ferguson who lease or rent their property to others. To qualify for a rental license, property owners must undertake building inspections, file affidavits stating whether any adult tenants are registered as sex offenders, retain a property manager residing within 25 miles of the rental property and pay licensing fees. The ordinance makes it unlawful for property owners to rent or lease their property without a license.

The St. Louis Association of Realtors (“the association”) is a trade association, registered as a Missouri not-for-profit corporation, with approximately 9,000 members in the St. Louis metropolitan area. The association's membership includes realtor members; real estate owners and other non-realtor individuals and firms as affiliate members; and individuals interested in the real estate profession who are employees of, or are affiliated with, educational, public utility, governmental or similar organizations.

The association challenged the validity of the ordinance on both constitutional and statutory grounds. Its petition asserts that it has associational standing on behalf of its members because some of those members are affected by the ordinance directly, because it has an interest in protecting private property rights of the type affected by the ordinance, and because the relief it requests is a declaration that the ordinance is invalid rather than damages and so, its suit does not require joinder of individual members.

After a bench trial, the trial court dismissed the petition without addressing the merits of the association's challenge to Ferguson's ordinance, holding instead that the association lacked standing to file suit. The association appeals the judgment that it is without standing. This Court finds that the association has standing and remands.

II. THE ASSOCIATION SATISFIES THE THREE–FACTOR TEST FOR INVOKING ASSOCIATIONAL STANDING

“Standing is a question of law, which is reviewed de novo.” Manzara v. State, 343 S.W.3d 656, 659 (Mo. banc 2011). Parties seeking relief “bear the burden of establishing that they have standing.” Id. “Reduced to its essence, standing roughly means that the parties seeking relief must have some personal interest at stake in the dispute, even if that interest is attenuated, slight or remote.” Ste. Genevieve Sch. Dist. R–II v. Bd. of Alderman of the City of Ste. Genevieve, 66 S.W.3d 6, 10 (Mo. banc 2002). To assert standing successfully, a plaintiff must have a legally protectable interest. Comm. for Educ. Equality v. State, 294 S.W.3d 477, 484 (Mo. banc 2009); Battlefield Fire Protection Dist. v. City of Springfield, 941 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Mo. banc 1997). A legally protectable interest exists only if the plaintiff is affected directly and adversely by the challenged action or if the plaintiff's interest is conferred statutorily. Id.

In Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977), the United States Supreme Court stated that the “case or controversy” requirement of article III, section 2 of the United States Constitution requires that an association have standing. An association that itself has not suffered a direct injury from a challenged activity nevertheless may assert “associational standing” to protect the interests of its members if certain requirements are met. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 511, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). Hunt set out a three-part test to analyze whether the requirements for associational standing have been met in a particular case: The association must demonstrate that “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” 432 U.S. at 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434.

Missouri has adopted the Hunt framework for analyzing associational standing. Missouri Outdoor Advertising Ass'n, Inc. v. Missouri State Hwy. & Transp. Comm., 826 S.W.2d 342, 344 (Mo. banc 1992). This Court has determined that, although the Missouri Constitution does not have a parallel “case or controversy” requirement, use of Hunt's three-factor test for standing allows Missouri courts to ensure that “an actual controversy exists between persons whose interests are adverse” and that those who stand to benefit from the litigation “have a legally protectable interest at stake.” State ex rel. Chilcutt v. Thatch, 359 Mo. 122, 221 S.W.2d 172, 176 (1949) (emphasis in original). Adopting the germaneness prong of Hunt ensures that there is not a “wholesale mismatch between litigation topic and organizational expertise” such that “a litigating association would be no more than a law firm seeking to sue in its own name.” Humane Soc'y of the United States v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 45, 56 (D.C.Cir.1988) (emphasis in original).

A. The Association's Members Have Standing to Sue in Their Own Right

To satisfy the first prong of Hunt, an association claiming standing on behalf of its members, “must allege that its members, or any one of them, are suffering immediate or threatened injury as a result of the challenged action of the sort that would make out a justiciable case had the members themselves brought suit.” Warth, 422 U.S. at 511, 95 S.Ct. 2197. “A justiciable controversy exists where the plaintiff has a legally protectable interest at stake, a substantial controversy exists between parties with genuinely adverse interests, and that controversy is ripe for judicial determination.” Missouri Health Care Ass'n v. Attorney Gen. of the State of Missouri, 953 S.W.2d 617, 620 (Mo. banc 1997).

Here, the association satisfied the first prong of Hunt by demonstrating that some of its members are property owners in Ferguson and, so, would have standing in their own right to challenge Ferguson's ordinance. Specifically, three realtor-members testified that they own rental property within Ferguson and, as such, have felt a direct impact from the various requirements imposed by the ordinance.¹ The government affairs director of the association testified that there are other owner-members as well, although she could not state their number. These members now face the option of either ceasing their rental activities or complying with the various requirements of the ordinance. In either case, the ordinance imposes burdens upon the interest these association members have as property owners. Accordingly, were these owners to assert standing to individually challenge the ordinance, they would have standing to do so.

Ferguson suggests that the presence of such a relatively small number of members owning real property in Ferguson is insufficient to confer standing on the association. It argues that for the association to assert standing successfully, a majority of the association's members must be affected by Ferguson's ordinance or the interest affected must be the primary interest for which the members joined the association. This argument is without merit.

In Warth, the United States Supreme Court specifically held that the first element of associational standing is satisfied if the organization establishes that “its members, or any one of them, are suffering immediate or threatened injury as a result of the challenged action of the sort that would make out a justiciable case had the members themselves brought suit.” 422 U.S. at 511, 95 S.Ct. 2197 (emphasis added). Numerous subsequent cases have applied this rule.² At trial, the association easily met this standard by presenting testimony from three of its members who were property owners who could have brought suit themselves to challenge Ferguson's ordinance.

B. Neither the Claim Asserted Nor the Relief Requested Requires the Participation of the Association's Members

The record also unequivocally shows that the association satisfies the third prong of Hunt in that neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.

Where an association seeks only a prospective remedy, it is presumed that the relief to be gained from the litigation “will inure to the benefit of those members of the association actually injured.” Id. at 515, 95 S.Ct. 2197. Accordingly, requests made by an association for prospective relief generally do not require the individual participation of the organization's members. Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Wildwood, 32 S.W.3d 612, 615 (Mo.App.2000). Conversely, where an association seeks a remedy such as money damages, the participation of its individual members is necessary to determine the particular damages to which each affected member is entitled. Missouri Bankers...