Smith v. City of St. Louis, 395 S.W.3d 20

Appeal from a declaratory judgment voiding St. Louis TIF ordinances for allegedly missing defined redevelopment projects and a cost-benefit analysis.
Redevelopment plan covers ~1500 acres with an ~$8.1 billion cost over 20 years, divided into areas A–D.
Ordinances 68484 and 68485 adopted the redevelopment plan and authorized Northside; findings included blight and conformity with the city plan.
Plaintiffs Bonzella Smith and Isaiah Hair sought injunctions and declaratory relief; intervenors Cheryl Nelson and Elke McIntosh joined.
Trial court voided the ordinances as to lack of defined projects and cost-benefit analysis; court also denied attorney fees; judgment appealed and cross-appeals followed.
Court reverses only to the extent of voiding for lack of a defined redevelopment project; otherwise, judgment is affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the lack of a defined redevelopment project was properly raised.	Smith/Hair contended issue was raised.	Northside/City argued issue not preserved.	Issue not properly raised; voidable only to the limited extent.
Whether the issue was tried by implied consent despite not being pleaded.	Plaintiffs implied consent through evidence.	No implied consent; issue not pleaded.	No implied consent; trial court should not have decided in plaintiffs' favor on this point.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying attorney fees.	Fees should be awarded under §527.100 for special circumstances.	No special circumstances; advocacy of positions is normal litigation.	No abuse of discretion; attorney fees denial affirmed.
Whether cross-appeal points were properly considered or should be dismissed under Rule 84.04.	Cross-appeal challenges additional grounds for invalidity.	Rule 84.04 deficiencies require dismissal.	Cross-appeal points dismissed for Rule 84.04 deficiencies.

Maryland Plaza Redev. Corp. v. Greenberg, 594 S.W.2d 284 (Mo.App.1979) (voided redevelopment ordinance for lack of financing detail when lending sources not identified)
Parking Systems, Inc. v. City of Kansas Downtown Redevelopment Corp., 518 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1974) (no requirement to prove ample funds in bank; adequate evidence may suffice)
City of St. Joseph v. St. Joseph Riverboat Partners, 141 S.W.3d 513 (Mo.App.2004) (pleading controls issues; lack of pleading voids beyond pleadings)
Goellner v. Goellner Printing, 226 S.W.3d 176 (Mo.App.2007) (special circumstances for costs/attorney fees are narrowly construed)
Residential & Resort Assocs., Inc. v. Wolfe, 274 S.W.3d 566 (Mo.App.2009) (pleadings and implied consent principles related to issues tried by evidence)