Missouri Bankers Association, Inc., and Jonesburg State Bank v. St. Louis County, Missouri, and Charlie A. Dooley, 2014 Mo. LEXIS 221

Background

In 2012 St. Louis County enacted a "Mortgage Foreclosure Intervention Code" requiring lenders to notify borrowers of a pre-foreclosure mediation program, obtain a certificate of compliance before recording a conveyance, and pay fees to a mediation coordinator; noncompliance exposed lenders to criminal fines.
Missouri Bankers Assn. and Jonesburg State Bank sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the ordinance conflicted with state law, exceeded county charter authority, violated the Hancock Amendment, and other constitutional/statutory provisions.
The circuit court upheld the ordinance; the county later conceded a conflict with a newly enacted state statute (section 443.454) and agreed not to enforce the ordinance, and the court of appeals dismissed the appeal as moot; the Missouri Supreme Court took transfer.
The Supreme Court considered (1) whether the ordinance exceeded the county's charter authority under Mo. Const. art. VI, §18, (2) whether the issue was moot after state statutory enactment, and (3) whether plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys’ fees under the Hancock Amendment.
The Court held the ordinance was void ab initio because foreclosure-mediation regulation implicated statewide policy and was not a matter of purely local concern within the county’s charter legislative authority; it also held plaintiffs were not entitled to Hancock Amendment attorneys’ fees.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Charter authority under art. VI, §18(c) — does county have power to enact mediation ordinance?	County exceeded charter authority; foreclosure mediation touches statewide policy and is not a purely local function.	County relied on §18(c) police-power/charter authority to enact countywide services/functions, so ordinance supersedes conflicting state law.	Held: County exceeded charter authority; ordinance void ab initio because foreclosure regulation is a state interest, not purely local.
Preemption / conflict with state law (sec. 443.454) — does state statute bar local ordinance?	Ordinance conflicts with state foreclosure law and newly enacted §443.454; county cannot supersede state law on statewide foreclosure policy.	County argued its constitutional charter power preempts state statute.	Held: State interest governs; ordinance conflicts with state law and county charter power does not permit local invasion of statewide policy.
Mootness after §443.454 and county’s promise not to enforce	Plaintiffs sought a decision on ordinance validity despite statute and county's non-enforcement.	County argued enactment of §443.454 and non-enforcement mooted the controversy.	Held: Not moot because county claimed charter supremacy and ordinance remained unrepealed; Court reached merits.
Hancock Amendment fees (attorneys’ fees) — are plaintiffs entitled to fees under Mo. Const. art. X, §23?	Plaintiffs seek fees because their suit invalidated the ordinance and enforced Hancock Amendment limits on fees.	County argued it lacked authority to enact the program, so no Hancock Amendment violation occurred.	Held: Plaintiffs not entitled to fees: ordinance was void ab initio, so there was no Hancock Amendment violation that their suit sustained.

Key Cases Cited

Humane Soc’y of United States v. State, 405 S.W.3d 532 (Mo. banc 2013) (mootness principles when subsequent enactments remove controversy)
C.C. Dillon Co. v. City of Eureka, 12 S.W.3d 322 (Mo. banc 2000) (repeal or superseding enactments can render a challenge moot)
ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
McCollum v. Dir. of Revenue, 906 S.W.2d 368 (Mo. banc 1995) (presumption of ordinance validity)
Home Builders Ass’n of Greater St. Louis, Inc. v. City of Wildwood, 107 S.W.3d 235 (Mo. banc 2003) (ordinance invalid only if expressly inconsistent or irreconcilable with state law)
Flower Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. St. Louis Cnty., 528 S.W.2d 749 (Mo. banc 1975) (charter county may not invade province of general legislation on statewide policy)
State on Info. of Dalton ex rel. Shepley v. Gamble, 280 S.W.2d 656 (Mo. 1955) (constitutional grants to charter counties may supersede legislative power in some areas)
Casper v. Hetlage, 359 S.W.2d 781 (Mo. 1962) (exercise of police power is a governmental function delegated to charter counties)
R.E.J., Inc. v. City of Silceston, 142 S.W.3d 744 (Mo. banc 2004) (invalid legislation is void ab initio)
State ex rel. Pub. Defender Comm’n v. Cnty. Court of Greene Cnty., 667 S.W.2d 409 (Mo. banc 1984) (unconstitutional legislation is void ab initio)