Willits v. Peabody Coal Co.

• Decision Date: 25 June 2013
• Docket Number: No. ED 98674.,ED 98674.
• Citation: 400 S.W.3d 442
• Parties: Patricia WILLITS, et al., Appellants, v. PEABODY COAL COMPANY, LLC, et al., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

400 S.W.3d 442

Patricia WILLITS, et al., Appellants,

v.PEABODY COAL COMPANY, LLC, et al., Respondents.

No. ED 98674.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Three.

April 9, 2013.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 16, 2013.

Application for Transfer Denied June 25, 2013.

George A. Barton, Robert G. Harken, Kansas City, MO, Jeffrey J. Lowe, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

John S. Sandberg, Timothy C. Sansone, St. Louis, MO, for respondent Peabody Coal Company, et al.

Chris Koster, Jeremiah J. Morgan, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent State of Missouri.

Glenn A. Davis, St. Louis, MO, Mason L. Miller, Lexington, KY, for respondent Armstrong Coal Company and Western Diamond.

ROY L. RICHTER, Judge.

Patricia Parrott Willits, William G. Parrott, Jr., and Donald Petrie (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from the trial court's judgment sustaining the Peabody Defendants' ¹ and Armstrong Defendants' ² Joint Motion to Dismiss and denying Appellants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Finding Appellants failed to assert their constitutional arguments at the first opportunity available, we need not consider Appellants' allegations of error absent a showing of plain error. Making no such showing, we thus decline to consider the merits of Appellants' appeal, and affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

The facts, procedural background, and arguments of this case are so vast, academic, and novel, that this case is befitting for a law school exam. Thus, for ease of understanding, we begin, not with the underlying action, but, rather, we proceed in a chronological and systematic manner. However, we only convey the facts necessary for the disposition of the underlying claims as the other facts leading to this appeal have not changed and can be found in other judicial decisions referenced throughout this opinion.

Willits I

In 1990, Appellants filed suit against Peabody Coal Company (“Peabody”) ³ in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky seeking to recover damages for the alleged breach of contract and fraud perpetrated by Peabody, due to the manner in which Peabody calculated the payment of coal royalties under written agreements (dating back to the 1940s) with the Appellants. At issue in that case was the validity of the 1954 Royalty Agreements as applied to Peabody (i.e., Peabody's duty to pay royalties to Appellants). The district court upheld the validity of the 1954 Royalty Agreements, and, thus Peabody's duty to pay certain royalties to Appellants. After final judgment was entered by the district court in an unpublished opinion, Peabody appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

In Willits v. Peabody Coal Co., 1999 WL 701916 (6th Cir. Sept. 1, 1999) (“ Willits I ”), the Sixth Circuit affirmed, in relevant part, the district court's finding of the validity of the 1954 Royalty Agreements as applied to Peabody. Willits v. Peabody Coal Co., 1999 WL 701916, *13–14 (6th Cir.1999) (“ Willits I ”).

Willits II

At some time after Willits I, the Peabody Defendants entered into sales, assignments, and leases of certain lands covered by the 1954 Royalty Agreements with the Armstrong Defendants. Thereafter, neither the Peabody nor Armstrong Defendants paid royalties to the Appellants for the coal mined by the Armstrong Defendants on the land either sold, assigned, or leased to the Armstrong Defendants.

In May 2008, Appellants filed suit against the Peabody Defendants and the Armstrong Defendants in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis for an alleged breach of contract based upon the written agreements (dating back to the 1940s) for failure to pay royalties and also seeking declaratory relief regarding future royalty payments. At the trial court, Appellants argued that validity of the 1954 Royalty Agreements had already been conclusively established in Willits I, and, thus, the trial court was obligated to give full faith and credit to that judicial decision. Conversely, the Peabody Defendants and Armstrong Defendants contended that Willits I dealt with different issues (because the facts had changed since Peabody had entered into certain sales, assignments and leases in the interim) and Willits I's had no bearing on the Armstrong Defendants. Specifically, the Peabody and Armstrong Defendants claimed Willits I did not involve the effect of the later sales, assignments and leases with the Armstrong Defendants to the 1954 Royalty Agreements.

At the trial court, cross-motions for summary judgment were filed. On March 29, 2010, the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis entered its Order and Judgment (“March 2010 Trial Court Judgment”) denying Appellants' motion for summary judgment and granting the Peabody Defendants' and Armstrong Defendants' motions for summary judgment. The trial court further held that the Peabody Defendants and Armstrong Defendants had “no further obligation to pay royalties to plaintiffs on coal mined on or after January 31, 2007 pursuant to [the 1954 Royalty Agreements.]” ⁴

Appellants appealed the March 2010 Trial Court Judgment to this Court. See Willits v. Peabody Coal Co., LLC, 332 S.W.3d 260 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) ( “ Willits II ”).⁵ Agreeing with the trial court, this court affirmed the March 2010 Trial Court Judgment. Id. at 263–65.

Subsequently, Appellants filed their Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court (“Rehearing/Transfer Motion”). This Court denied Appellants' Rehearing/Transfer Motion on March 1, 2011. Further, Appellant's Application for Transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court (“Application for Transfer”) was denied March 29, 2011. The legal file is void of any evidence indicating that Appellants sought certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.

Willits III

Next, Appellants filed this underlying Petition for Declaratory Relief in the Circuit Court of Saint Louis County on August 8, 2011, against numerous defendants:

(1) Peabody Coal Company, LLC and Peabody Energy Corporation and its affiliates ⁶ (collectively, “Peabody Defendants”);

(2) Armstrong Land Company, LLC and its affiliates ⁷ (collectively, “Armstrong Defendants”); and

(3) the State of Missouri (“State”).

In their five-count Petition, Appellants allege five constitutional counts against the State ⁸—acting through its judicial branch—in entering the March 2010 Trial Court Judgment and Willits II: (1) the State violated Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution (commonly referred to as the “Full Faith and Credit Clause”) ⁹ by failing to give full faith and credit to Willits I's holding regarding the validity of the 1954 Royalty Agreements; (2) the State's actions constituted “judicial takings” in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution as made applicable to the State through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,¹⁰ in that the State took private property (or more specifically, altered property rights that a private party had an established interest therein) without just compensation; (3) the State's actions violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution as made applicable to the State through the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution,¹¹ in that Appellants were not afforded their substantive due process rights; (4) the State's actions constituted “judicial takings” in violation of Article 1, Section 28 of the Missouri Constitution (Missouri Constitution's “Taking Clause”); ¹² and (5) the State's actions violated Article 1, § 10 of the Missouri Constitution (Missouri Constitution's “Substantive Due Process Clause”),¹³ in that Appellants were not afforded their substantive due process rights.

The Peabody and Armstrong Defendants filed their Joint Motion to Dismiss—which the State joined—and Appellants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. After oral arguments before the trial court, on February 29, 2012, the trial court entered judgment sustaining the Peabody and Armstrong Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss. The trial court held, sua sponte, Appellants' claims against the State were barred under the doctrine of judicial immunity, and Appellants' claims under the United States Constitution did not state a cognizable claim for relief.

This appeal now follows.

II. DISCUSSION

Appellants raise four points on appeal. In all four points, Appellants argue that the trial court erred in sustaining the Peabody and Armstrong Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss. Specifically, Appellants claim that the trial court erred in: (1) sustaining the Joint Motion to Dismiss because res judicata does not bar Appellants' constitutional claims; (2) sustaining the Joint Motion to Dismiss because the March 2010 Trial Court Judgment and Willits II violated the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution; (3) sua sponte dismissing Appellants' Petition based upon the doctrine of judicial immunity because the Peabody and Armstrong Defendants did not raise said argument in their Joint Motion to Dismiss; and (4) sua sponte dismissing Appellants' Petition based upon a finding that Appellants' “judicial takings” claim failed to state an actionable claim for relief because the Peabody and Armstrong Defendants did not raise said argument in their Joint Motion to Dismiss.

Finding that Appellants failed to assert their constitutional arguments—thus, their entire Petition—at the first opportunity, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' arguments. We affirm the trial court's judgment because Appellants have waived their right to bring their constitutional claims.

Standard of Review

This Court's review of a trial court's judgment sustaining a motion to dismiss is de novo. Stein v. Novus Equities Co., 284 S.W.3d 597, 601 (Mo.App. E.D.2009). When reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, we apply the following standard...