Ballard v. City of Creve Coeur
419 S.W.3d 109
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellants Ballard, Baur, and the Arnolds challenge Creve Coeur's red light camera ordinance and seek declaratory and equitable relief.
- The city issued violations for violations of public safety at an intersection; Ballard paid a $100 fine, while Arnolds and Baur did not.
- Appellants filed an amended class action petition asserting six counts including declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment, self-incrimination, due process, civil conspiracy, and unjust enrichment against ATS.
- The trial court granted a joint motion to dismiss, holding Arnolds and Baur have an adequate remedy at law and Ballard lacks standing/waiver/estoppel, and dismissed substantive constitutional claims.
- The court found the Ordinance valid under police power and not in conflict with state law, and dismissed Ballard’s unjust enrichment claims; Ballard timely appeals on limited preserved issues.
- On appeal, the court affirmed Arnolds/Baur dismissal, reversed on Ballard’s police power issue for remand, and affirmed other aspects of the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Ordinance a valid exercise of police power? | Ballard argues the Ordinance is invalid and revenue-driven. | Creve Coeur argues rational relation to public safety and no conflict with state law. | Ordinance valid; but remanded for discovery on revenue-generation purpose. |
| Do Arnolds and Baur have an adequate remedy at law to avoid equitable relief? | Arnolds/Baur claim no adequate remedy due to multiplicity of actions and ongoing prosecutions. | Municipal court de novo review provides adequate legal remedy. | Arnolds and Baur properly dismissed; adequate remedy at law exists. |
| Are Ballard's constitutional claims preserved and reviewable? | Ballard seeks constitutional relief; argues standing/waiver/estoppel do not foreclose relief. | Appellants abandoned preserved constitutional issues; trial court correct on those points. | Ballard's preserved issues moot; constitutional challenges not reviewed on appeal. |
| Is Ballard entitled to unjust enrichment relief given the voluntary payment doctrine? | Ballard paid under belief ordinance valid; seeks restitution. | Voluntary payment doctrine bars restitution; payment was voluntary with knowledge of facts. | Voluntary payment doctrine bars Ballard's unjust enrichment claim; moot as to both defendants. |
| Did the trial court properly dismiss Counts I, III, IV, and V for Arnolds/Baur? | Arnolds/Baur assert no adequate legal remedy and misapplication of equitable relief. | Adequate remedy at law exists; injunction/declaratory relief improper where legal remedy available. | Trial court affirmed as to Arnolds/Baur; not error to dismiss Counts I, III, IV, V. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nottebrok, 356 S.W.3d 252 (Mo.App.E.D.2011) (validates police power while considering state-law consistency)
- Smith v. City of St. Louis, 409 S.W.3d 404 (Mo.App.E.D.2013) (traffic-regulation police power; Nottebrok connection; revenue considerations)
- Unverferth v. City of Florissant, 419 S.W.3d 76 (Mo.App.E.D.2013) (equitable relief warranted only when legal remedies are inadequate)
- Purcell v. Cape Girardeau County Com’n, 322 S.W.3d 522 (Mo. banc 2010) (equitable relief available where legal remedies are inadequate)
- Huch v. Charter Commc’n, Inc., 290 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. banc 2009) (mistake of law vs. fact in voluntary payment doctrine context)