State v. City of O'fallon

• Decision Date: 26 June 2001
• Docket Number: ED78930
• Citation: 53 S.W.3d 211
• Parties: State of Missouri ex rel. St. Charles County Counselor, Relator/Appellant, v. City of O'Fallon, et al., Respondents. ED78930 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District 0
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

State of Missouri ex rel. St. Charles County Counselor, Relator/Appellant v City of O'Fallon, et al., Respondents

ED78930

Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District

06/26/2001

Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Lucy Rauch

Counsel for Appellant: Lisa Leslie and Joann Leykam

Counsel for Respondent: Robert M. Wohler, Stephen A. Martin and Kathryn M. Koch

Opinion Summary: The St. Charles County Counselor appeals the court's judgment dismissing the County's petition in quo warranto against respondents, City of O'Fallon, et al.

Division Three holds: The trial court erred in dismissing the County's quo warranto petition on the merits. The trial court should quash the preliminary order in quo warranto for lack of jurisdiction.

Crahan and Draper III, JJ., concur.

Gary M. Gaertner, Sr., Presiding Judge

Relator/Appellant, St. Charles County Counselor ("County"), appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County dismissing its petition in Quo Warranto against respondents, City of O'Fallon, et al. ("City"). We reverse and remand.

In 1998, and thereafter, City passed municipal ordinances to annex certain parcels of property pursuant to the provisions of Section 71.014, RSMo 1994.(FN1) On September 27, 2000, County Counselor filed a petition in Quo Warranto in the Circuit Court alleging that six of City's municipal annexation ordinances are invalid because the statutory requirements of compactness and contiguity in Section 71.014 have not been fulfilled.

On September 27, 2000, a Preliminary Order in Quo Warranto was issued by the trial court. On October 26, 2000, City filed a motion to dismiss petition in Quo Warranto. City, among other things, asserted that Quo Warranto could only be commenced by the Attorney General or prosecuting attorney. After a hearing on November 17, 2000, the trial court entered a judgment and order dismissing County's petition in Quo Warranto. The court held that Section 10.603 of the County's Charter clearly prohibits County from intervening, or participating, in favor of or in opposition to any annexation of territory. County appeals.

In reviewing a court-tried case, we will sustain the judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976).

County raises three points on appeal. In its first point, County argues the trial court erred in dismissing its petition in Quo Warranto on the grounds that the Charter prohibits the County from intervening in an annexation. In its second point, County argues the trial court erred in dismissing its petition because a Charter may not constitutionally change the authority for annexation and a Charter provision cannot take away the inherent power of the right to challenge a legally insufficient annexation by Quo Warranto. In its final point, County argues the trial court erred in dismissing its petition because County is not intervening in an annexation when it brings an action in Quo Warranto.

Section 10.603 of the County's Charter provides: "[t]he county shall not intervene or otherwise participate, in favor of, or in opposition to, any annexation of territory to any city, town or village." In 1998, this Court concluded that County's petition for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to prevent City from annexing certain property constituted an action to intervene in opposition to annexation. St. Charles County v. City of O'Fallon, 972 S.W.2d 327, 328 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998). Thus, we held that County was barred by its Charter that prohibited County from intervening or participating in favor of or in opposition to any annexation of property. Id.

At the November 1998 general election, the voters of St. Charles County approved a charter revision to the County Charter. Article IV, Section 4.602.3 states: "the County Counselor shall have charge of and conduct all of the civil law business of the County, its departments, divisions, offices, officers, boards and commissions, including the authority to file an action in quo warranto." County argues that this Court's decision in 1998 does not bar it from bringing the current action because while it is the real party in the declaratory action above, it is not the real party in interest in the current Quo Warranto action. County claims the real party in interest are the citizens of the State of Missouri. Thus, County argues that its Charter does not bar it from bringing the current action.

Before addressing the issue of whether the County's Charter prohibits it from bringing a petition in Quo Warranto to challenge an annexation, we must first decide whether the Quo Warranto petition was properly brought before the court. City argues the County Counselor does not have constitutional or statutory authority to bring a Quo Warranto action. We agree.

The power to determine whether or not a Quo Warranto proceeding shall be instituted is vested in the Attorney General or prosecuting attorneys by ...