Brehm v. Bacon Township, 426 S.W.3d 1

Brehm sought a declaratory judgment that Road 2710 along the eastern edge of his property is not a public road and is owned by him.
The road runs parallel to the now-abandoned MKT Railroad track; the land west of the road is owned by Brehm, the land east by the Missouri Conservation Commission via the Department of Conservation.
A gate at Road 2710 at 5th Street Schell City was erected in 1990 by Aquila Inc., with keys held by Aquila, Brehm, and Union Pacific; Schell City later removed the gate in 2008.
The Department moved for summary judgment arguing Road 2710 became a public county road under section 228.190.2 due to CART funding for at least five years; a 2011 quiet title judgment is attached showing the strip is owned by the Conservation Commission and that Brehm has only a license to use the road.
Brehm’s response admitted the quiet title judgment but did not contest the land description or ownership of the strip, and he failed to show a current ownership interest to give standing to challenge the statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brehm has standing to challenge section 228.190.2 as applied	Brehm asserts ownership interest in the road strip and challenges due process and just compensation implications	Department shows Brehm lacks current ownership in the strip to invoke the statute	Brehm lacked standing; no ownership interest shown to trigger as-applied challenge
Whether the road status was properly deemed public under section 228.190.2	Brehm claims due process issues and ownership disputes preclude automatic public-road designation	Road 2710 met five-year CART-funding requirement and is conclusively a public road	Court affirmed summary judgment on ownership/standing grounds, not addressing constitutionality on the merits

State v. Young, 362 S.W.3d 386 (Mo. banc 2012) (standing to challenge constitutionality requires legally protectable interest)
Schweich v. Nixon, 408 S.W.3d 769 (Mo. banc 2013) (standing and protectable interest to raise constitutional challenges)
ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standard; material facts viewed in movant’s favor)
Mo. State Med. Ass’n v. State, 256 S.W.3d 85 (Mo. banc 2008) (standing and public regulation context)
Mo. Soybean Ass’n v. Mo. Clean Water Comm’n, 102 S.W.3d 10 (Mo. banc 2003) (standing and rights in administrative actions)
Jamison v. State, Dep’t of Soc. Servs., Div. of Family Servs., 218 S.W.3d 399 (Mo. banc 2007) (due process considerations in state actions)