State ex rel. Members of Bd. of Ed. of Everton R-III School Dist. v. Members of Bd. of Ed. of Greenfield R-IV School Dist., R-III

• Decision Date: 19 October 1978
• Docket Number: No. 10560,R-IV,R-III,10560
• Citation: 572 S.W.2d 899
• Parties: STATE of Missouri ex rel. MEMBERS OF the BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EVERTONSCHOOL DISTRICT, Relators-Appellants, v. MEMBERS OF the BOARD OF EDUCATION OF GREENFIELDSCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 899

572 S.W.2d 899

STATE of Missouri ex rel. MEMBERS OF the BOARD OF EDUCATION OF EVERTON R-III SCHOOL DISTRICT, Relators-Appellants, v. MEMBERS OF the BOARD OF EDUCATION OF GREENFIELD R-IV SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondents.

No. 10560.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Springfield District, Division Two.

Oct. 19, 1978.

Nicholas R. Fiorella, Springfield, for relators-appellants.

J. A. Appelquist, Springfield, for respondents.

BILLINGS, Chief Judge.

Two-count suit by Everton R-III School District against Greenfield R-IV School District. Plaintiff sought mandamus and declaratory judgment relief, challenging the change of boundaries between the two districts. The trial court ruled quo warranto, not mandamus, was plaintiff's remedy and entered judgment for defendant on count two. The judgment entered on count two is modified as hereinafter set forth, and as modified the judgment of the lower court is affirmed.

Everton and Greenfield are six-director districts. Pursuant to § 162.431, RSMo 1969, an election for a change in boundaries was conducted. Everton voted against and Greenfield voted for the proposed change. Appeal to the state board of education resulted in the appointment of a Board of Arbitration which approved the boundaries change. This action transferred property formerly included in Everton district to the Greenfield district.

Plaintiff's counts alleged the transferred property was not contiguous territory to the Greenfield district and the change violated Missouri law. Both counts sought restoration of the disputed property to Everton's jurisdiction.

After hearing evidence, the trial court sustained Greenfield's motion to dismiss the mandamus proceeding and in entering judgment against Everton for a declaratory judgment held the court ". . . can not and will not disturb, invade or review the merits of changes in school district boundaries passed upon by a Statutory Board of Arbitration having duly acted as in the case at hand and (Everton is) denied the relief requested in Count Two . . . and the decision of the Board of Arbitration is upheld."

We need not and do not consider Everton's contention that § 162.431 requires any boundaries change to be contiguous to the districts involved because resolution of that question can only be determined in quo warranto since it is clear to us that the dispute in this case involves claim of jurisdiction over the same property by two school districts. "(T)he public interest is involved and the rights of the respective districts should be settled in Quo Warranto." State ex rel. Purdy Reorg. Sch. Dist. No. 11 v. Snider, 470 S.W.2d 805, 809 (Mo.App.1971)...