OTT LAW

Robert Lee, Relator, v. Honorable Michael Jamison, Circuit Court, St. Louis, County, Respondent.

Decision date: March 29, 2011ED96285

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

WRIT DIVISION FIVE

ROBERT LEE, ) No. ED96285 ) Relator, ) Writ of Prohibition ) v. ) Circuit Court of the County of ) St. Louis, Missouri HONORABLE MICHAEL JAMISON, ) Cause No. 10SL-CC02464 CIRCUIT COURT, ST. LOUIS, COUNTY, ) ) Respondent. ) FILED: March 29, 2011

Relator Robert Lee filed a petition for a writ of prohibition to require the respondent judge to grant his Motion to Dismiss in Cause No. 10SL-CC02464, a Petition for Removal allegedly brought against him by the Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District. Because we find the judge exceeded his jurisdiction in denying the motion as the petition was not duly authorized, the writ is granted. Facts As of 2 July 2009, Robert Lee was serving as a duly-elected director on the Board of the Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District (District) in St. Louis County, Missouri. The District is a political subdivision of the State of Missouri, created and controlled by Chapter 321 of the Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri. On 2 July 2009, the Board passed a resolution purporting to remove Lee as a director. Lee filed for a writ of prohibition, alleging that the means used to remove him were illegal. Robert

Lee v. Joseph Washington, et. al, Cause No. 09SL-CC05076. The circuit court granted the writ and ordered the District to reinstate Lee, but stayed its order pursuant to the disposition of the then-pending petition for removal, allegedly filed by the District to remove Lee from the Board. Lee filed a motion to dismiss this petition pursuant to Rule 55.27, arguing that the purported plaintiff and the undersigned attorney lacked the authority and capacity to bring the petition because the Board never voted to pursue such action nor signed a written contract with any attorney for the prosecution of such a suit against him. At the evidentiary hearing on the motion, Lee presented uncontroverted evidence in the form of testimony of two of the Board's directors, Bridget Quinlisk Daily and Derrick Mays, that the Board had not contracted with any attorney, never authorized or passed a resolution to institute a suit for removal of Lee, and never agreed to authorize attorney Rufus Tate, Jr., to bring such a suit. The circuit court, the Honorable Michael Jamison, presiding, entered an order denying Lee's Motion but granted him leave to file a petition for a writ of prohibition. Analysis "A writ of prohibition is the proper remedy to prevent a lower court from acting beyond its jurisdiction." State ex rel. Griffin v. Belt, 941 S.W.2d 570, 572 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997). While it is unusual to issue a writ directing a court to grant a motion to dismiss, such a writ is appropriate where the motion should have been granted because the other party lacks standing or capacity to sue. Id. This is because "[s]uch a lack is jurisdictional rather than procedural, and precludes suit." Id.

2

The lower court lacked jurisdiction to hear this case because it was filed without proper authority. A director serving on the board of a fire protection district may be removed by one of two mechanisms. Inter City Fire Protection Dist. v. DePung, 283 S.W.3d 277, 277-78 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009). He may be removed via an action by quo warranto or by the circuit court for good cause shown upon a petition, notice and hearing. Section 321.190 1 ; DePung, 283 S.W.3d 277-78. A petition to the circuit court to remove a director serving on the board of a fire protection district must be authorized by the majority of the members of the district's Board. See DePung, 283 S.W.3d 278-79. There was uncontroverted testimony from two directors, a majority of the three-member Board, that the Board never agreed to authorize a suit for removal of Director Lee. Accordingly, the purported plaintiff lacked standing to sue. The preliminary writ of prohibition is made permanent and Respondent is ordered to dismiss Cause No. 10SL-CC02464 after considering any request for attorney fees by Relator Lee. SO ORDERED.

______________________________ Kenneth M. Romines, Presiding Judge Writ Division Five

Roy L. Richter, C.J. and Glenn A. Norton, J., concur.

cc: Neil J. Bruntrager Rufus J. Tate, Jr. Hon. Michael Jamison Anthony D. Gray

1 All statutory references are to RSMo 2010 unless otherwise specified.

3

Related Opinions

Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987

affirmed
criminal-lawmajority4,922 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080

affirmed

McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,374 words

STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782

affirmed

The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,516 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218

remanded

James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.

criminal-lawper_curiam3,993 words

State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Gerald R. Nytes, Appellant.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED113261

affirmed

Gerald Nytes appealed his conviction for violating a full order of protection, arguing the State failed to prove he had notice of the order as required by statute. The court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of notice based on Nytes's presence at the contested order of protection hearing and his subsequent violation through phone calls made from jail to the protected party.

criminal-lawper_curiam1,603 words