State ex rel. Pryor v. Nelson

• Decision Date: 09 December 2014
• Docket Number: WD 77494
• Citation: 450 S.W.3d 811
• Parties: State ex rel: Amanda Pryor, Appellant, v. Douglas Nelson and Chris Koster, Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

450 S.W.3d 811

State ex rel: Amanda Pryor, Appellant

v.Douglas Nelson and Chris Koster, Respondents.

WD 77494

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed December 9, 2014

John M. Albright, Poplar Bluff, MO for appellant.

Robert L. Presson, Jefferson City, MO for respondent.

Before Division One: Thomas H. Newton, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick and Anthony Rex Gabbert, Judges

Opinion

Lisa White Hardwick, Judge

Amanda Pryor, as next friend for the four minor children of Zachary Snyder, appeals the circuit court's judgment dismissing her petition for a writ of mandamus against Douglas E. Nelson, the Commissioner of the Office of Administration of the State of Missouri, and Chris Koster, the Attorney General of the State of Missouri (collectively, “Respondents”). Pryor sought the writ to compel Respondents to issue checks from the State Legal Expense Fund (“the Fund”) to satisfy a judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (“federal court”) against a Department of Corrections employee for Snyder's wrongful death. On appeal, Pryor contends she stated a claim for mandamus relief. For reasons explained herein, we affirm.

Factual and Procedural History

Steven Julian was a Department of Corrections employee with the Fugitive Apprehension Unit when he attempted to apprehend Snyder, a parolee who was subject to electronic monitoring and had missed a curfew. In the course of returning Snyder to custody, Julian shot Snyder, who was unarmed, in the back, killing him.

Pryor, as next friend for Snyder's minor children, filed suit against Julian in federal court. The Attorney General provided Julian's defense, and Julian cooperated in his defense. The jury returned a verdict of $1 million in favor of the minor children and against Julian. The clerk of the court memorialized the jury's verdict in a judgment on August 15, 2012. After ruling on the parties' post-trial motions, the federal court entered a judgment on the verdict on August 8, 2013. In the judgment, the federal court apportioned the $1 million verdict between the minor children and ordered the children's attorney's fees paid out of the judgment. On August 13, 2013, Pryor made demand on Respondents, seeking the issuance of checks from the Fund to satisfy the judgment.

When Respondents failed to pay the judgment within ten days, Pryor filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Cole County Circuit Court. In her petition, Pryor alleged that, because the Attorney General had tendered a defense on behalf of Julian, a State employee, for conduct arising out of and performed in connection with his duties, the State was required under Section 105.711, RSMo Cum.Supp.2013,¹ to satisfy the verdict with money from the Fund. Pryor requested a preliminary order in mandamus commanding Respondents to file an answer and a judgment compelling Respondents “to complete the ministerial act of issuing payments against the [Fund]” on behalf of the minor children to satisfy the federal court's judgment.

The court entered a preliminary order in mandamus and directed Respondents to file a responsive pleading to Pryor's petition. Respondents filed an answer in which they asserted, among other things, that Julian shot and killed Snyder only after he “perceived a sudden, threatening motion from Snyder” and that the Attorney General had filed an appeal from the federal court's judgment.

Respondents also filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for judgment on the pleadings. They asserted that the petition failed to state a claim for mandamus relief because under Section 105.711.2, money in the Fund is available to pay only amounts required by “any final judgment.” Respondents noted that the petition alleged only that the federal court entered a “judgment” and ignored the fact that that the Attorney General had filed an appeal from that judgment. Alternatively, Respondents argued that they were entitled to judgment on the pleadings because they alleged in their answer that the Attorney General had appealed the federal court's judgment, thereby demonstrating that the judgment was not final.

In response, Pryor asserted that the finality of the federal court's judgment was not affected by the filing of a notice of appeal. Pryor argued that, in the absence of an automatic stay or proof of the posting of a supersedeas bond, she was entitled to execute on the judgment by having Respondents issue checks from the Fund.²

On April 4, 2014, the circuit court entered its judgment dismissing Pryor's petition for failure to state a claim. Pryor appeals.³

Standard of Review

Appellate review of a dismissal for failure to state a claim is de novo. Lynch v. Lynch, 260 S.W.3d 834, 836 (Mo. banc 2008). We will “affirm the dismissal if it can be sustained on any ground supported by the motion to dismiss.” Beck v. Fleming, 165 S.W.3d 156, 158 (Mo. banc 2005) (footnote omitted). We accept the allegations in the petition as true, and “no attempt is made to weigh any facts alleged as to whether they are credible or persuasive.” Keveney v. Mo. Military Acad., 304 S.W.3d 98, 101 (Mo. banc 2010). Indeed, we construe the petition liberally and accord it “ ‘all reasonable inferences deducible from the facts stated.’ ” Lakeridge Enters., Inc. v. Knox, 311 S.W.3d 268, 271 (Mo.App.2010) (citation omitted). “The petition is reviewed in an almost academic manner, to determine if the facts alleged meet the elements of a recognized cause of action or of a cause that might be adopted in that case.” Keveney, 304 S.W.3d at 101.

Analysis

In her sole point on appeal, Pryor contends the court erred in dismissing her petition for a writ of mandamus compelling Respondents to issue checks from the Fund to satisfy the federal court's judgment. “Mandamus will lie only when there is a clear, unequivocal, specific right to be enforced.” State ex rel. Mo. Growth Ass'n v. State Tax Comm'n, 998 S.W.2d 786, 788 (Mo. banc 1999). This is because the purpose of mandamus “is to execute, not adjudicate.” Id. If the right is doubtful, mandamus is not the appropriate remedy. Jones v. Jackson Co. Circuit Court, 162 S.W.3d 53, 58 (Mo.App.2005).

In determining “whether the right to mandamus is clearly established and presently existing,” we examine the statute under which the petitioner asserts the right. Jones v. Carnahan, 965 S.W.2d 209, 213 (Mo.App.1998). In this case, Pryor asserts her claim under Section 105.711.2. This statute provides, in pertinent part, that “[m]oneys in the state legal expense fund shall be available for the payment of any claim or any amount required by any final judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction” against an employee of the State or a State agency for conduct arising out of and performed in connection with the employee's official duties. § 105.711.2(2).

The issue in this case is whether Pryor's petition alleged facts showing that the federal court's judgment was a “final judgment” requiring payment by the Fund. Pryor argues that, because the judgment was final for purposes of appeal, it was a “final judgment” for all purposes, including the application of Section 105.711.2.

A judgment, however, “may be characterized as final in one sense or for some purposes and not in another sense or for other purposes.” State ex rel. Berbiglia, Inc. v. Randall, 423 S.W.2d 765, 768 (Mo. banc 1968). In Berbiglia, the Supreme Court explained that, while the finality of a judgment most often arises in the context of its appealability, a judgment that is final for purposes of appeal is not necessarily final in other contexts:

For example, a judgment or decree final for the purposes of appeal is most certainly not final in the sense that it is conclusive on the parties until the losing party has failed to appeal within the time allowed by law, or, having appealed, until the appeal is determined; and, although it is not final in that sense because an appeal is pending, yet during that period it may be final in the sense that the court from which the appeal was taken has exhausted its authority and is without jurisdiction to change, vacate or modify the judgment, or to enter another judgment.

Id. Appealability was not at issue in Berbiglia, nor is it at issue in this case. The question in Berbiglia was whether a judgment was final in the sense that the circuit court entering the judgment no longer had jurisdiction to change, vacate, or modify the judgment, or to enter another judgment. Id. at 769. That is not the issue here, as we are not concerned with the extent of the federal court's continuing jurisdiction over its judgment.

Additionally, the finality of a judgment can arise in the context of res judicata or collateral estoppel, the application of which requires a “final judgment” on the merits. Robin Farms, Inc. v. Beeler, 991 S.W.2d 182, 186 (Mo.App.1999) (holding that, when an appellate court vacates a lower court's judgment, the lower court's judgment is no longer considered a “final judgment” for purposes of claim or issue preclusion). The purpose of res judicata and collateral estoppel is to prevent the relitigation of claims and issues unambiguously decided in a prior proceeding. Gamble v. Browning, 379 S.W.3d 194, 198 (Mo.App.2012). Because relitigation is not a concern of Section 105.711, a judgment considered final for preclusion purposes is not necessarily a “final judgment” mandating payment from the Fund.

The finality of a judgment also can arise in a contractual context, such as the obligation of a liability insurer to pay a judgment under an insurance policy. This court has held that, where an insurance policy requires a “final judgment” of the insured's liability before payment, the judgment is not final until after the appeal period has expired or, if an appeal is taken, until after the appeal is determined. Joyce v. Central Sur. & Ins. Corp., 321 S.W.2d 272, 278–79 (Mo.App.1959). We recognize that the Fund is not insurance, Kesterson v. Wallut, 157 S.W.3d...