Bradley Ferguson, Appellant, v. Edward Hillhouse. et al., Respondent.
Decision date: UnknownED92467
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Syllabus
]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.
DISSENT
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 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
Related Opinions
PAUL METZGER, and JACQUELINE METZGER, Respondents v. WAYNE MORELOCK, and KATHY MORELOCK, Appellants(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictMarch 12, 2026#SD38930
The trial court granted summary judgment to the Metzgers on their claim for a prescriptive easement over a portion of a paved driveway between their home and the Morelocks' property. The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Kevin Rosenbohm, Trustee of the Kevin and Michele Rosenbohm Family Trust Dated July 1, 2011 and Matt Rosenbohm and Nick Rosenbohm vs. Gregory Stiens, and Gregory Stiens, Trustee of the Anthony Stiens Trust(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87720
The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the Rosenbohms on their adverse possession and trespass claims against Stiens regarding disputed tracts of property in Nodaway County. The court rejected Stiens's arguments regarding excluded evidence, cross-examination, jury instructions on permissive use defense, and remanded the case for the court to amend the judgment with precise legal descriptions of the disputed property.
Arthur F. Daume, Jr., and Gayle C. Daume, Appellants, v. Thomas Szepanksi, et al., Respondents.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 3, 2026#ED113073
In this quiet title appeal, the court reversed the trial court's interpretation of an easement deed that the Daumes held over a private roadway. The court rejected the trial court's constructions that the easement's 'non-commercial purposes' limitation prohibited agricultural use and that it was restricted to the Daumes and their immediate family members.
Colleen Eikmeier and William S. Love, Appellants, vs. Granite Springs Home Owners Association, Inc. A Missouri Not-For-Profit Corp., Respondent.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101161
The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and held that a 2022 statute prohibiting homeowners' associations from banning solar panel installations applies to preexisting covenants, not just prospective ones. The homeowners' challenge to the HOA's restriction on solar panels visible from the street was successful, as the statute's prohibitions supersede prior restrictive covenants.
State of Missouri, ex rel., State Tax Commission vs. County Executive of Jackson County, Missouri, Assessor of Jackson County, Missouri, Jackson County Board of Equalization, through its Members in their Official Capacities, Clerk of the Jackson County, Missouri, Legislature(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 30, 2025#WD87831