549 S.W.3d 1
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Howard County Ambulance District (Ambulance District) provided EMS transport for 17-year-old Lance Brown after a Fayette police officer summoned EMS; Brown was transported to a hospital and his mother was billed $1,266.01.
- Officer Jones (Fayette) did not sign any agreement with the Ambulance District at the scene; City police officers lack authority to bind the City for ambulance services.
- The Ambulance District is organized under Mo. Rev. Stat. Chapter 190 and enacted Ordinance No. 2 (2007) making the detaining entity liable for ambulance charges when an individual detained by law enforcement requires ambulance care.
- The City of Fayette had no written contract with the Ambulance District for ambulance services; City had written agreements with other municipal entities but not with the Ambulance District.
- Ambulance District sued the patient’s mother for the bill, later amended to assert a claim against the City; the trial court entered judgment for the City (and against the mother). The Ambulance District appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether City is liable for ambulance charges without a written contract under §432.070 | Ambulance Dist. contends §190.060 and its Ordinance No. 2 authorize charging the City; nothing in state law limits that power | City argues §432.070 requires a written, duly authorized contract to bind a municipality and none exists here | Court held §432.070 bars recovery; no compliant written contract existed, so City not liable |
| Whether equitable estoppel or "exceptional circumstances" can overcome §432.070's writing requirement | Ambulance Dist. claims both are public agencies and City has duty to provide needed care, so estoppel should apply | City contends estoppel cannot be used to enforce or remediate a contract void under §432.070 | Court held equitable estoppel does not relieve §432.070; void municipal contracts cannot be enforced by estoppel |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for court-tried cases)
- Newsome v. Kansas City, Mo. Sch. Dist., 520 S.W.3d 769 (Mo. banc 2017) (§432.070 writing requirements are mandatory; unwritten municipal contracts are void)
- Investors Title Co. v. Hammonds, 217 S.W.3d 288 (Mo. banc 2007) (§432.070 bars recovery on implied or subsequent contract terms)
- Burger v. City of Springfield, 323 S.W.2d 777 (Mo. 1959) (municipality not liable absent §432.070 compliance; benefit received does not create liability)
- Lamar Co. v. City of Columbia, 512 S.W.3d 774 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (equitable estoppel cannot enforce contracts void under §432.070)
- Withers v. City of Lake St. Louis, 318 S.W.3d 256 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (§432.070 protects municipalities from post-performance claims)
- Donovan v. Kansas City, 175 S.W.2d 874 (Mo. banc 1943) (cities cannot be made liable by estoppel for contracts they had no power to make)