John P. Strake v. Robinwood West Community Improvement District
473 S.W.3d 642
Mo.2015Background
- Strake appeals a summary judgment for Robinwood West CID on Sunshine Law disclosure; seeks civil penalty and attorney fees/costs.
- Robinwood is a public governmental body within Sunshine Law; Strake seeks records about settlement of a personal injury suit in which he resides.
- Settlement agreement contained a confidentiality clause; Robinwood’s counsel warned disclosure could breach the contract.
- Trial court granted Strake’s disclosure motion but denied penalties/fees; relied on conflicting obligations argument and counsel advice.
- Opinion reverses summary judgment for Robinwood and remands for further proceedings, rejecting the conflicting-obligations rationale and finding potential knowing/purposely violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether settlement records are open under Sunshine Law | Strake asserts settlement records are open records | Robinwood argues records closed by contract and counsel advice to deny | Settlement records are open absent court order to close |
| Whether Robinwood knowingly violated the Sunshine Law | Robinwood knew Sunshine Law obligations but withheld records | Robinwood relied on attorney advice and believed disclosure could breach contract | Trial court erred; there can be knowing violation despite counsel’s advice or conflicting obligations |
| Whether civil penalties and attorney fees should be awarded for knowing/purposely violating the Sunshine Law | Statutory penalties/fees apply for knowing/purposely violations | No knowing/purposeful violation proven; defense relied on conflict with contract | Remanded for further proceedings; not affirmed for Robinwood on penalties/fees |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. City of Ladue, 422 S.W.3d 439 (Mo. App. 2013) (defines knowing violation in Sunshine Law context)
- Spradlin v. City of Fulton, 982 S.W.2d 255 (Mo. banc 1998) (conscious design/intent to violate with awareness of consequences)
- Great Rivers Envtl. Law Ctr. v. City of St. Peters, 290 S.W.3d 732 (Mo. App. 2009) (preponderance standard for Sunshine Law violations)
- ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-Am. Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary judgment standard and de novo review on appeal)
- J.A.R. v. D.G.R., 426 S.W.3d 624 (Mo. banc 2014) (preservation of points not raised in court of appeals)