Bradley Ferguson, Appellant, v. Edward Hillhouse. et al., Respondent.

]ntbefflissouriQtourtof~ppeaIs (fasternllBistrict DIVISIONFIVE BRADLEYFERGUSON, Appellant, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) AppealfromtheCircuitCourt ofFranklinCounty No.ED92467 vs. HonorableJohnB.Berkemeyer EDWARDHILLHOUSE,et aI., Respondent.

BradleyFerguson("Ferguson")appealsthejudgmentsoftheCircuitCourtof FranklinCountyfirstdenyinghispetitionfora writofmandamusandsubsequently denyinghispetitionforjudicialreview.Wedismisshisappealasmoot. I.BACKGROUND Ferguson,a registeredFranklinCountyvoter,filedhisPetitionforIncorporation ofVillageofStonewater("PetitionforIncorporation")pursuanttosection72.080RSMo Cum.Supp.2007withtheFranklinCountyCommission("Commission")onDecember 26,2007.InhisPetitionforIncorporation,Fergusonprayed"thatthequestionbe submittedat thenextgeneralelection" -whichwouldhavebeenin Novemberof2008. AtthesametimethatFerguson'sPetitionforIncorporationwaspendingbeforethe Commission,a billwaspendingbeforetheMissouriGeneralAssemblywhich,if passed,

wouldrepealthoseportionsofsection72.080(2007)thatprovidedforincorporatinga village. AttheCommissionmeetingofMay27,2008,theCommissionvoted2-1against placingFerguson'sproposedincorporationofthevillageofStonewaterontheAugust5, 2008ballot. OnJune6, 2008,FergusonfiledhisPetitionforWritofMandamusandJudicial Reviewin thetrialcourt.InCountI,thePetitionforWritofMandamus,Ferguson allegedthathisPetitionforIncorporationcompliedwithalltherequirementsofsection 72.080(2007)andthattheCommissionerswhovotedagainstplacingtheissueonthe ballotimproperlyconsideredthefactthatthestatutewouldbeamendedeffectiveAugust 28,2008.FergusonclaimedthattheCommissionactedarbitrarilyandinexcessofits authoritywhenit votednotto placetheincorporationissueontheAugust5, 2008ballot. InCountII,hisrequestforJudicialReview,Fergusonaskedthatthetrialcourtdirectthe CommissiontoplacetheincorporationissueontheAugust5 ballot. OnJune19,2008,onemonthaftertheCommissionvotednottoplaceFerguson's Petitionontheballot,theGovernorofMissourisignedintolawthebillwhichrepealed thoseprovisionsofsection72.080(2007)thatallowedforincorporationofa village.l Approximatelyonemonthlater,onJuly14,2008,thetrialcourtissueda preliminarywritofmandamusandorderedtheCommissionerstofileresponsive pleadings.TheCommissionersresponded,interalia,thattheyhavea dutytodetermine thelegalityofa proposedincorporationbeforedeclaringanelection.TheCommissioners furtherstatedthatthebillpendingbeforetheMissouriGeneralAssembly,which 1 Therevisedversionofsection72.0S0becameeffectiveonAugust2S,200S.SeeSection72.0S0RSMo Cum.Supp.2008. 2

proposedtoremovetheprovisionsforincorporatinga village,causedthemtoengagein additionalscrutinyofFerguson'sPetition. OnJuly29,2008,thetrialcourtissueditsorderdenyingthewritofmandamus andcontinuingFerguson'sPetitionforJudicialReview.Thetrialcourtstatedit was denyingthewritbecausetheCommission'sfunctionin analyzinga petitionpursuantto section72.080wasdiscretionaryratherthanministerial,andthatsuchactioncouldnotbe compelledabsentmanifestinjustice.WenotethatnoneoftheversionsofSection72.080 (2006,2007or2008)givethePetitionertheauthoritytodecideat whichelectionthe Petitionshouldappearontheballot;thatdecisionis vestedin thegoverningbody. OnOctober10,2008,thetrialcourtenteredjudgmentdenyingFerguson'sPetition forJudicialReview.Fergusonappeals. II.DISCUSSION Fergusonraisesfourpointsonappealwhereinhechallengesthetrialcourt's actionsbothindenyingthewritofmandamusandin denyingjudicialreview.Becausea judgmentrenderedbythisCourtwouldnothaveanypracticaleffectonthecontroversyat issue,wedismissFerguson'sappealasmoot. "Athresholdquestioninanyappellatereviewofa controversyisthemootnessof thecontroversy."InreEstateofWashington,277S.W.3d777,780(Mo.App.E.D. 2009)(citingReynoldsv.CityofValleyPark,254S.W.3d264,266(Mo.App.E.D. 2008)).Wewillnotdecidea casethatis moot,andmaydismissa caseformootnesssua sponte.Id. Anappealmayberenderedmootif aneventoccursthatmakesa court'sdecision unnecessaryorthatmakesgrantingeffectualreliefbythecourtimpossible.InrePrye, 3

169S.W.3d116,120(Mo.App.E.D.2005)."Intermsof justiciability,a caseis mootif a judgmentrenderedhasnopracticaleffectuponanexistentcontroversy."Armstrongv. Elmore,990S.W.2d62,64(Mo.App.W.D.1999)(quotingStateexreI.Chastainv. City ofKansasCity,968S.W.2d232,237(Mo.App.W.D.1998)).Whena caseis rendered moot,generallyit shouldbedismissed.Brockv. Brock,142S.W.3d204,206(Mo.App. E.D.2004). Thecontroversyinthiscaseis moot.FergusonasksthisCourt:(1)tofindthatthe CommissionwasobligatedtoplacetheproposedincorporationontheAugust5, 2008 ballot;and/or(2)todirectthetrialcourttoissueitswritofmandamusandorderthe Commissiontoplacetheincorporationissueonthenextelectionballot.Inthetimesince thetrialcourtdeniedFerguson'swrit,theAugust5, 2008electiondatehaspassed. Furthermore,thecurrentversionofsection72.080nolongerprovidesforthe incorporationofa village.SeeSection72.080RSMoCum.Supp.2008.Therefore,a decisionbythisCourtgrantingFergusonthereliefheseekswouldhavenopractical effectontheexistentcontroversy.ThisCourtwillnotdecidenon-existentissues.See Armstrong,990S.W.2dat 64(holdingthata decisionastowhethertheCountyClerkwas requiredtoplaceanissueontheelectionballotwasmootwheretheelectionhadalready passed). III.CONCLUSION Ferguson'sappealis dismissedformootness.(/J.tI~ ~~ RoyL.R chter,Judge KennethM.Romines,C.J.,dissentsinseparateopinion GlennA.Norton,J.,concurs 4

]ntbe;fffilissouri~ourtof~ppeals Qfastern119istrict DIVISIONFIVE BRADLEYFERGUSON, Appellant, v. EDWARDHILLHOUSE,et ai., Respondent.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No.ED92467 AppealfromtheCircuitCourt ofFranklinCounty HonorableJohnB.Berkemeyer

I dissent.Thiscaseis notmoot,justinconvenient.Inconvenientbecauseas Courtswearereluctanttoreversetheactionofelectedofficials.1 Atissueis themeaningtobegivenSection72.080RSMo.Thatsectionreads " . ..(1)Whenevera numberofvotersequaltofifteenpercentoftheregistered votersintheareaproposedtobeincorporatedshallpresenta petitiontothe governingbodyofthecountyin whichsuchcity,town,villageorareais situated, suchpetitionshalldescribe,bymetesandbounds,theareatobeincorporatedand beaccompaniedbya platthereof,shallstatetheapproximatepopulationandthe assessedvaluationofallrealandpersonalpropertyin theareaandshallstatefacts showingthattheproposedcity,town,orvillage,if suchvillagehasat leastone hundredinhabitantsresidinginit,shallhavetheabilitytofurnishnormal municipalserviceswithina reasonabletimeafteritsincorporationis tobecome 1Courtsarereluctanttothepointofallowinglegislationevenif thatlegislationis obtainedbybribe.City of Columbiav.OmniOutdoorAdvertising"Inc.,499U.S.365,366,IIIS.Ct.1344,1346(U.S.S.c.,1991).

effectiveandprayingthatthequestionbesubmittedtodetermineif it maybe incorporated; (2)Thegoverningbodyshallsubmitthequestionto thevotersif it is satisfiedthe numberofvoterssigningsuchpetitionis equaltofifteenpercentoftheregistered votersin theareaproposedtobeincorporated." Thisis a straightforwardcombinationofwords- neitherobliquenorambiguous. Likewisetherecordis clear- Mr.Fergusoncompliedwithalltherequirementsof§ 72.080,supra.I believethemajoritybelievesthis,thoughtheyavoidthisissuewith "mootness."I alsobelievethemajoritywouldconcedethatthetwomembersofthe FranklinCountyCommissionthatcomprisedthemajority -ontherecord-madeclear thattheywerenotgoingtocomplywith§ 72.080,supra;"mootness",again,avoidsthe Issue. Mr.Fergusonbringstwoissuesforourconsideration.One-shouldtheFranklin CountyCommissionbecompelledtocomplywith§ 72.080bymandamus? Two- wastheactionoftheFranklinCountyCommissionarbitrary,capricious andunreasonableasa rulingofanadministrativebody. I donotbelieveweneedtoreachMr.Ferguson'ssecondpoint-thoughit is clear thattheCommission'sactionwasindeedarbitrary,capriciousandunreasonable. Assuch,wehavebeforeusa mandamuscase.Whethera writofmandamusis requiredis a questionoflaw,questionsoflawarerevieweddenovo.Endicottv.Display Technologies,Inc.,77S.W.3d612,615(Mo.banc2002).Thepartywhoseeks mandamusmustproveanunequivocal,clear,specificright.Stateexrei.Officeof Public Counselv.PublicServiceCom'n of State,236S.W.3d632,635(Mo.,2007).Mr. 2TheCircuitCourtbelowdeniedmandamusanddeniedtheadministrativeappeal. 2

Fergusonhasmetthisstandard-again,I believethemajoritywouldconcedeMr. Ferguson'scompliancewitheveryaspectofthestatute. ReluctantasCourtsaretotelllegislativebodiestheyhaverunafoulofthelaw withlegislation - thatreluctancedisappearswhenthesamebodyfunctions administratively.Thestandardis differentbecausewhenactingadministrativelythe legislativebodyis notexercisingitspolicepower,andis notmakingpolicy.Here,the FranklinCountyCommissionis actinginitsadministrativecapacity.Assuchthe Commissionis compelledtoplacetheissueoftheIncorporationoftheVillageof Stonewaterontheballottobevotedupordown. TheCircuitCourtbelowfounddiscretionin theCommission -discretionwhich doesnotappearin§ 72.080.TheCommission'ssolediscretionis todecideat which electiontheballotpropositionwillbesubmittedtothevoters,asthestatutedoesnotseta specificelectiondate. Themajoritydiscussestherepealof§ 72.080 -simply,whenMr.Ferguson soughtincorporation§ 72.080wasthelaw.Mr.Fergusonhada dueprocessright consistentwithArt.I § 10ConstitutionofMissouriastheCommissionhadthecase beforerepeal,asindeeddidtheCircuitCourt,astherepealdidnotbecomeeffectiveuntil 28August2008. ConsistentlyasCourtsweapplystatutesineffectwhena petitionhasbeen broughtbeforea Courtpriortotherepealofthestatute- whetherit bevenueprovisions, workercompensation,wrongfuldeath,medicalmalpractice,orindeedcriminalcases- a 3

partyreceivesthebenefitofthestatuteunderwhichthecaseis brought,thusavoidingan expostfactoinquiry.3 UnequivocallyandclearlyMr.Fergusonhasa righttoplacetheIncorporationof theCityofStonewaterontheballot. MandamusshouldissueOrderingtheCountyCommissionofFranklinCounty, MissouritoplacetheIncorporationoftheVillageofStonewater,Missouriontheballot.4 -r" 3 Therepealof§ 72.080didnotapplytherepealretrospectively- indeedthelegislativehistoryindicatesan attemptat retrospectiveapplicationwasdefeated. 4Additionally,I notethatRespondentfailedto filea briefwiththiscourt.Whilethisdoesnotviolateany rulesorstatutes,"itis animpositiononthecourtthatleavesuswithoutthebenefitofClaimant'sresearch andinsight."MissouriForge,Inc.v.Turner,118S.W.3d313,316(Mo.App.S.D.2003).Whileweare requiredtodecidethecaseregardlessofwhetherRespondentpreparesa brief,wearenottobecomean advocateforRespondentRhodesv.Blair,919S.W.2d561,563,565(Mo,App.S.D.1996). 4