Opinion No. (2011)
Background
- Missouri § 57.955 requires a $3 surcharge in civil actions and criminal cases, including municipal ordinance violations, with exceptions for waived costs or government payment.
- Question presented: whether municipal courts are within the statute’s scope as courts of the state for surcharge collection.
- Municipal courts are divisions of the circuit court; historically, they have been treated as part of the state court system.
- There is interpretive tension with Turner v. State and State v. Severe about whether municipal courts are state courts; the opinion distinguishes civil vs. criminal statutes.
- Court concludes municipal courts are “courts of the state,” so surcharge collection applies to municipal ordinance violation cases unless costs are waived or paid by government.
- § 479.260 discussion shows amendments favor allowing collection of the surcharge consistent with the overall fee schedule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are municipal courts ‘courts of the state’ for § 57.955? | Municipal courts are divisions, not state courts. | Statutory text and constitutional structure imply municipal divisions are state courts. | Municipal courts are courts of the state; surcharge applies. |
| Does § 57.955 require collection of the $3 surcharge in municipal ordinance violations? | Surcharge applies to all civil actions, including municipal violations. | Exceptions exist only if costs are waived or paid by government; municipal cases fall within the statute. | Yes; surcharge must be collected in municipal ordinance violation cases. |
| Does collection of the surcharge conflict with § 479.260? | § 479.260 precludes additional surcharges in municipal costs. | Amended § 479.260 allows collection of other court costs; surcharge can be collected alongside. | No conflict; surcharge permitted under § 57.955 when using the § 488.010-.020 schedule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. State, 245 S.W.3d 826 (Mo. banc 2008) (state court vs. municipal court distinction for prior offenses)
- City of Strafford v. Croxdale, 272 S.W.3d 401 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (municipal ordinance violations framework; strict interpretation of municipal procedures)
- City of Kansas City v. Heather, 273 S.W.3d 592 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (municipal ordinance violations; quasi-criminal nature yet civil action)
- State ex rel. Estill v. Iannone, 687 S.W.2d 172 (Mo. banc 1985) (costs construed; strict interpretation context)
- Gregory v. Corrigan, 685 S.W.2d 840 (Mo. banc 1985) (constitutional structure and municipal court integration)
- Reed v. City of Springfield, 841 S.W.2d 283 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992) (costs; strict construction concepts in municipal contexts)
- In re C.M.C., 173 S.W.3d 695 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (cost recovery; municipal and civil context)
- S.S. v. Mitchell, 289 S.W.3d 797 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (interpretation of statutes; municipal court applicability)
- Snyder v. Consolidated Library Dist. No. 3, 306 S.W.3d 133 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (statutory construction—plain terms vs. broader interpretation)