State ex rel. Lehmann v. Fox C-6 Sch. Dist., No. ED 106399

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Writing for the Court: ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., Judge
• Citation: 565 S.W.3d 202
• Parties: STATE of Missouri EX REL. Deborah Ann LEHMANN, Appellant, v. FOX C-6 SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.
• Docket Number: No. ED 106399
• Decision Date: 23 October 2018

565 S.W.3d 202

STATE of Missouri EX REL. Deborah Ann LEHMANN, Appellant,
v.
FOX C-6 SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.

No. ED 106399

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

Filed: October 23, 2018
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied December 3, 2018
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 29, 2019

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Kevin A. Thompson, 138 East Circle Drive, Jefferson City, MO 65109.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: Celynda L. Brasher, 34 N. Meramec, Suite 600, St. Louis, MO 63105.

ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., Judge

565 S.W.3d 204

Deborah Lehmann ("Appellant") appeals from the trial court’s order and judgment dissolving a preliminary writ and dismissing her application for writ of prohibition against Fox C-6 School District ("District"). We reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to dismiss the application for writ of prohibition without prejudice because Appellant has an adequate remedy of appeal under the Missouri Teacher Tenure Act and the Missouri Administrative Procedures Act.

The parties do not dispute that Appellant was a tenured teacher at the time of the events alleged in this case. She had been employed by the District for over twenty-five years and was working as a speech-language pathologist when she was served by the District with a "Statement of Charges" alleging she willfully and persistently violated and failed to obey state law and school board policies. Thereafter, she filed an application for writ of prohibition in the trial court seeking a writ prohibiting the District from going forward with a hearing on the Statement of Charges until the District provided citations to the exact provisions of law that Appellant was charged with violating. Appellant claimed that the failure to specify with particularity the grounds alleged to exist for termination prevented her from preparing a defense and thereby violated her due process rights.¹ The trial court entered a preliminary order in prohibition and granted the District thirty days to file an answer. After filing its answer, the District also served Appellant with a "Revised Statement of Charges," which Appellant claimed were still legally insufficient. Following a hearing, the trial court found the Revised Statement of Charges to be appropriately specific, dissolved the preliminary writ and dismissed Appellant’s application for writ of prohibition. This appeal follows.

Appellant makes two claims on appeal. First, she claims that the trial court erred in dissolving the preliminary writ and not making it permanent in that the District lacks authority to proceed under the Teacher Tenure Act because its Revised Statement of Charges did not cite the particular provisions of law purportedly violated for each allegation and therefore the District failed to serve the Appellant with "written charges specifying with particularity" the alleged grounds for termination of the contract.² Second, Appellant claims the trial court erred in dissolving the preliminary writ and not making it permanent because the Revised Statement of Charges is fatally vague in that it did not cite the particular provision of law purportedly violated for each allegation, and she cannot

565 S.W.3d 205

therefore prepare a defense, violating her due process rights.

"Although denials of writ applications are generally not appealable, when a preliminary writ has been issued by the circuit court, and the preliminary writ is then quashed, the order quashing the writ is generally an appealable final judgment." State ex rel. Rosenberg v. Jarrett , 233 S.W.3d 757, 761 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007). "Because the disposition of the underlying writ request is discretionary, the matter is reviewed on appeal only to determine whether the circuit court abused its discretion in quashing the writ." Id.

"The writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy to be used with great caution and forbearance and only in cases of extreme necessity." State ex rel. Cass County, Missouri v. Mollenkamp , 481 S.W.3d 26, 29 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015). A writ of prohibition does not issue as a matter of right but is issued at the court’s discretion. Id. "A court may issue a writ of prohibition when the facts and circumstances of the case demonstrate unequivocally that an extreme necessity for preventative action exists." Id.

"The essential function of prohibition is to correct or prevent an inferior court or agency from acting without or in excess of its jurisdiction." Id. Prohibition is not a substitute for an appeal and has been...