Brendan Ford vs. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri
Decision date: October 31, 2023WD85505
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Brendan Ford
- Respondent
- Director of Revenue, State of Missouri
Judges
- Trial Court Judge
- STEPHANIE M
Disposition
Reversed
Procedural posture: Appeal from trial de novo
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.
Opinion
BRENDAN FORD, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) WD85505 ) DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, ) STATE OF MISSOURI, ) Filed: October 31, 2023 ) Respondent. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BOONE COUNTY THE HONORABLE STEPHANIE M. MORRELL, JUDGE
BEFORE DIVISION THREE: LISA WHITE HARDWICK, PRESIDING JUDGE, KAREN KING MITCHELL, JUDGE, CYNTHIA L. MARTIN, JUDGE
Brendan Ford appeals from the judgment sustaining the suspension of his driving privileges. He contends the circuit court erred in not preserving a record of the trial de novo. Because the record on appeal is inadequate to permit meaningful appellate review, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial de novo on the record. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Director of Revenue suspended Ford's driver's license under Section 302.505, RSMo 2016, 1 following an administrative hearing on March 2, 2022. Pursuant to Section
1 All statutory references are to the Revised Statutes of Missouri 2016.
2
302.535.1, Ford filed a petition for a trial de novo in the Boone County Circuit Court. A trial de novo was conducted on May 19, 2022, after which the court entered its judgment sustaining the suspension. In its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court stated the evidence adduced at trial consisted of the Director's Exhibit A, Ford's Exhibit 1, and the testimony of a Columbia Police Department sergeant. 2 Based on the Director's Exhibit A and the sergeant's testimony, the court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Ford was arrested on probable cause to believe that he had committed an alcohol-related traffic offense, a chemical test of his breath revealed a blood-alcohol content of .08% or more, and the suspension of his driving privileges should be sustained. Ford appeals. RECORD ON APPEAL After Ford filed this appeal, he asked the Boone County Clerk's Office to send the sound log for the trial de novo to the Office of the State Courts Administrator ("OSCA") for transcription. The circuit court subsequently made a docket entry stating, "This case was not on the record on May 19, 2022, therefore, Clerk has nothing to send to OSCA for transcription." Ford argues, and the Director agrees, that the lack of a proper record prejudices his right of appeal and requires a new trial. "An appealing party is entitled to a full and complete transcript for an appellate court's review." Kreamalmyer v. Dir. of Revenue, 277 S.W.3d 323, 324 (Mo. App. 2009) (citation omitted). "Without a hearing transcript, we are unable to conduct a fair appellate review for both parties." Oyler v. Dir. of Revenue, 10 S.W.3d 226, 228 (Mo.
2 The judgment indicates the Director's Exhibit A was comprised of Department of Revenue records. The judgment does not indicate what Ford's Exhibit 1 was.
3
App. 2000). When, as in this case, the appellant "is free from fault or negligence, has exercised due diligence in seeking to prepare the record on appeal, and his right of appeal is prejudiced because a transcript of the proceedings in the trial court cannot be prepared, a new trial should be granted." Kreamalmyer, 277 S.W.3d at 324 (citations omitted). Ford's point is granted. CONCLUSION The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial de novo on the record. _____________________________ LISA WHITE HARDWICK, JUDGE All Concur.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Statutes
- RSMo § 302.505cited
Section 302.505, RSMo
Cases
- kreamalmyer v dir of revenue 277 sw3d 323followed
Kreamalmyer v. Dir. of Revenue, 277 S.W.3d 323
- oyler v dir of revenue 10 sw3d 226followed
Oyler v. Dir. of Revenue, 10 S.W.3d 226
Holdings
Issue-specific holdings extracted from the court's opinion.
Issue: Whether the circuit court erred in sustaining the suspension of driving privileges when no record of the trial de novo was preserved, thereby prejudicing the appellant's right to appeal.
Yes, an appealing party is entitled to a full and complete transcript for appellate review, and when the appellant is free from fault and diligent, the lack of a proper record requires a new trial.
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
James D. Ridgway, Jr., Respondent, vs. Director of Revenue, Appellant.(2019)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictApril 16, 2019#ED106535
Emily Omohundro vs. Denny Hoskins, Missouri Secretary of State, et al.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictJanuary 29, 2026#WD88567
The court reversed the trial court's approval of the summary statement for an initiative petition seeking to amend the Missouri Constitution to prevent public funds from benefiting nonpublic schools. The court agreed with the appellant that the summary statement was insufficient and unfair, and certified an alternative statement to the Secretary of State for inclusion on the ballot.
Sean Soendker Nicholson, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, vs. State of Missouri, et al., Respondents/Cross-Appellants.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101308
The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and declared Senate Bill 22 unconstitutional, finding it violated the Missouri Constitution's original purpose requirement. The court invalidated SB 22 in its entirety, determining that the bill's scope expanded far beyond its original stated purpose of amending ballot summary procedures to include unrelated provisions regarding judicial appeals.
Missouri Medical Options, LLC, Appellant, vs. Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, Respondent.(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 23, 2025#ED113472
Director, Missouri Department of Revenue vs. George S. Miller(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 16, 2025#WD87937
Victoria Amrine vs. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, Employer, and Division of Employment Security(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictNovember 25, 2025#WD88066