State v. Kinder, No. SC 84301.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam |
| Citation | 89 S.W.3d 454 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, ex inf. Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General of Missouri, Appellant, v. Cole County Circuit Judges Byron L. KINDER and Thomas J. Brown, III, Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 26 November 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. SC 84301. |
v.
Cole County Circuit Judges Byron L. KINDER and Thomas J. Brown, III, Respondents.
Page 455
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Page 456
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James R. McAdams, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Appellee.
Robert G. Russell, Sedalia, Dale C. Doerhoff, Jefferson City, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM.
Attorney General Jeremiah W. Nixon filed the instant action in the nature of quo warranto asking the Circuit Court of Osage County to "oust" Cole County Circuit Judges Byron L. Kinder and Thomas J. Brown, III from continuing to exercise supervisory authority over four receivership funds held in the registry of the Circuit Court of Cole County, and to instead pay the money in those funds over to the state treasurer. The funds consist of unclaimed monies in four suits pending for at least five years in Cole County in which defendants were directed to make refunds or distributions to utility customers, telephone company customers, or insurance liquidation claim holders. While many of those with claims to some of the monies in these funds have been identified and paid by the defendants or receivers in the underlying cases, the underlying cases remain pending for the purpose of identifying the remaining persons to whom payment is due, so that orders may be made determining the amounts to which they are entitled and payments may be ordered by the court.1
The attorney general nonetheless contends that respondent judges no longer have authority over the remaining funds because sections 447.539 and 447.543, RSMo 2000, a part of the Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act (hereinafter UDUPA),2 require the judges to report and pay over any remaining amounts to the state treasurer once the funds had been in existence for five years. The attorney general alleged that in retaining supervisory authority over the funds for more than five years, the judges are usurping power over the funds that should be exercised by the treasurer; and therefore, a writ of quo warranto should issue to confine the judges within their statutory authority.
The trial court dismissed the suit. The attorney general appealed to the Court of Appeals, Eastern District, which has jurisdiction over the Circuit Court of Osage County, alleging that section 531.010 did give the trial court supervisory authority over Cole County circuit judges for the purpose of granting relief in quo warranto. Because other cases relating to these same funds were pending in this Court (see note 1), this Court granted transfer prior to opinion. Mo. CONST. art. V, sec. 10.
Quo warranto is available only where it is alleged that an official has exercised a power he or she does not have, not where, as here, it is alleged that the official exercised an existing power wrongly or for too long of a period. Clearly circuit judges
Page 457
have the authority to exercise supervisory authority over funds paid into the registry of their courts. Equally basically, even were quo warranto theoretically available, the exercise of power by the circuit court of Osage County over the circuit judges of Cole County is prohibited by article V, section 4(1) of the Missouri Constitution. To the extent that the final sentence of section 531.010 states otherwise, it is in conflict with article V, section 4(1) and, so, is invalid. The judgment is affirmed.
Quo warranto is a writ of very ancient origin, dating back to the earliest days of the common law. Its original purpose was to inquire into the legality of the claim of one who purported to have the right to enjoy and exercise a particular office granted by the Crown. See Quo Warranto in Missouri, 1972 WASH. U.L.Q. 751. Its function remains basically the same today, to oust a "usurper" from the exercise or enjoyment of an office or franchise. Sec. 531.010. The powers of a lower court to grant quo warranto are now set out in section 531.010 and Rule 98. See State ex inf., McKittrick v. Murphy, 347 Mo. 484, 148 S.W.2d 527, 530 (1941) (noting codification of quo warranto).
The attorney general contends that section 531.010 authorizes the filing of this quo warranto action requesting the Circuit Court of Osage County to issue its writ ousting Cole County Circuit Court Judges Kinder and Brown from exercising authority over the four receivership funds existing in the registry of Cole County. Therefore, he argues, the trial court erred in holding that it had no authority to direct Judges Kinder and Brown as to how to administer the receivership funds.
Section 531.010 on its face does appear to permit the attorney general to ask a circuit judge of one county to oust a usurper to the office of circuit judge of another, adjoining county, for it states in relevant part:
In case any person shall usurp, intrude into or unlawfully hold or execute any office or franchise, the attorney general of the state, ... shall exhibit to the circuit court, or other court having concurrent jurisdiction therewith in civil...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jamison v. STATE, DIV. OF FAMILY SERVICES, No. SC 87360.
...court may find the statute unconstitutional only if it clearly contravenes a specific constitutional provision. State v. Kinder, 89 S.W.3d 454, 459 (Mo. banc 2002). "Nonetheless, if a statute conflicts with a constitutional provision or provisions, this Court must hold the statute invalid."......
-
State ex rel. Mo. Pub. Defender Comm'n v. Waters, No. SC 91150.
...“may not conflict with statutes,” Pratte, 298 S.W.3d at 882, and a statute may not conflict with the constitution. State v. Kinder, 89 S.W.3d 454, 459 (Mo. banc 2002). Rather, “if it is at all feasible to do so, statutes must be interpreted to be consistent with the [Missouri and federal] c......
-
Brown v. Carnahan, Nos. SC 92582
...precisely this kind of additional legislative directive from the General Assembly to an office of the executive branch. Farmer, 89 S.W.3d at 454. “The language of this clause is susceptible to a clear and unambiguous interpretation based only on the plain and ordinary meaning of the words.”......
-
Jamison v. State, No. SC 87360 (Mo. 3/13/2007), No. SC 87360.
...court may find the statute unconstitutional only if it clearly contravenes a specific constitutional provision. State v. Kinder, 89 S.W.3d 454, 459 (Mo. banc 2002). "Nonetheless, if a statute conflicts with a constitutional provision or provisions, this Court must hold the statute invalid."......
-
Jamison v. STATE, DIV. OF FAMILY SERVICES, No. SC 87360.
...court may find the statute unconstitutional only if it clearly contravenes a specific constitutional provision. State v. Kinder, 89 S.W.3d 454, 459 (Mo. banc 2002). "Nonetheless, if a statute conflicts with a constitutional provision or provisions, this Court must hold the statute invalid."......
-
State ex rel. Mo. Pub. Defender Comm'n v. Waters, No. SC 91150.
...“may not conflict with statutes,” Pratte, 298 S.W.3d at 882, and a statute may not conflict with the constitution. State v. Kinder, 89 S.W.3d 454, 459 (Mo. banc 2002). Rather, “if it is at all feasible to do so, statutes must be interpreted to be consistent with the [Missouri and federal] c......
-
Brown v. Carnahan, Nos. SC 92582
...precisely this kind of additional legislative directive from the General Assembly to an office of the executive branch. Farmer, 89 S.W.3d at 454. “The language of this clause is susceptible to a clear and unambiguous interpretation based only on the plain and ordinary meaning of the words.”......
-
Jamison v. State, No. SC 87360 (Mo. 3/13/2007), No. SC 87360.
...court may find the statute unconstitutional only if it clearly contravenes a specific constitutional provision. State v. Kinder, 89 S.W.3d 454, 459 (Mo. banc 2002). "Nonetheless, if a statute conflicts with a constitutional provision or provisions, this Court must hold the statute invalid."......