477 S.W.3d 49
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiffs seek judicial review of Ordinance 5355 granting a conditional-use permit for an assisted-living facility in Creve Coeur.
- Trial court held the City’s action did not violate law and dismissed the petition.
- MAPA governs contested and noncontested cases; this case was improper for MAPA review.
- Biermann Company owns 1.98-acre tract at 450 North Lindbergh Boulevard, GC zoning, with assisted-living as a conditional use.
- Planning and Zoning Commission held a hearing; witnesses sworn but formal evidentiary rules were not followed; final approval came from City Council via Ordinance 5355.
- Trial court’s dismissal premised on the case not being a contested case under MAPA; appellate reversal and dismissal remand sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case is contested or noncontested under MAPA | MAPA review applies to contested cases | Case lacks MAPA contested-case prerequisites | Noncontested; not governed by 536.100–536.140 |
| Whether the hearing fulfilled contested-case requirements | Hearing should determine legal rights of specific parties | Hearing did not determine rights; no formal contested-case procedures | Hearing did not meet MAPA contested-case standards |
| Whether MAPA review was appropriate for city’s conditional-use permit decision | Petition seeks MAPA-contested review of ordinance | MAPA only applies to contested cases; not here | Not proper under MAPA; case must be dismissed |
| Whether City Code procedures mandated a formal hearing | Procedural requirements were not met | Code provisions did not specify required contested-case hearing mechanics | Not a required MAPA contested hearing under code |
| Result of appeal | Court should review agency action on the merits | Action is outside MAPA scope | Reverse and dismiss petition for lack of claim under MAPA |
Key Cases Cited
- Furlong Companies, Inc. v. City of Kansas City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. banc 2006) (defines contested vs. noncontested review under MAPA)
- Valley Park v. Armstrong, 273 S.W.3d 504 (Mo. banc 2009) (hearing requirement and MAPA contends; scope of review)
- Cade v. State, 990 S.W.2d 32 (Mo.App.W.D.1999) (contested-case criteria; not all hearings create contested cases)
- McCoy v. Caldwell County, 145 S.W.3d 427 (Mo. banc 2004) (explanation of contested-case review and standards)
- Wooldridge v. Greene County, 198 S.W.3d 676 (Mo.App.S.D.2006) (not all hearings create contested cases; hearing must determine rights)
- Schlientz v. Rock Township Ambulance Dist., 146 S.W.3d 404 (Mo.App.E.D.2004) (hearing formality and MAPA applicability)