State Ex Inf. McCulloch v. Edwards
337 S.W.3d 118
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Northeast Ambulance and Fire Protection District is governed by a three-member board; in Oct 2009 only Edwards and Willis served, with a vacant third seat.
- Edwards convened meetings with Willis absent, voting and closing sessions without quorum or documented reasons.
- Edwards repeatedly moved, seconded his own motions, approved minutes, and voted to close meetings unilaterally, including three closed-session actions.
- Prosecuting attorney filed a quo warranto petition seeking Edwards' removal for usurpation of office and misconduct.
- Trial court found Edwards willfully usurped duties, exceeded authority, and engaged in misconduct by unilateral actions; Edwards was removed under section 531.010.
- Edwards appealed, challenging the removal on grounds of immunity and forfeiture, contending the court erred in its findings and authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immunity defense applicability | Edwards argues immunity shields him from removal actions. | McCulloch contends acts exceeded authority, thus immunity inapplicable. | Official and legislative immunities do not apply; acts were beyond authority and not discretionary. |
| Whether Edwards forfeited office by misconduct | Edwards disputes forfeiture, arguing no substantive misconduct occurred. | McCulloch shows three unilateral, non-quorum actions constitute misconduct and a willful forfeiture. | Edwards forfeited his office through willful misconduct by exercising powers without quorum on three occasions. |
| Jurisdiction and sufficiency of the quo warranto remedy | Forfeiture claims lack basis to support removal via quo warranto. | Quo warranto is proper to oust for misconduct; trial court may determine forfeiture. | Quo warranto proper; substantial evidence supported forfeiture and removal under the statute. |
| Standard of review on appeal | Standard supports reversal if any error found. | Maintain trial court credibility determinations and factual findings. | Court reviews for substantial evidence and defers to trial court on credibility; standard upheld. |
| Willfulness and authority exceeded | Actions were discretionary and within Edwards' authority. | Actions exceeded authority, thus not protected by immunity and justified removal. | Findings of intentional acts and power abuse were supported; removal affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard for sustaining appellate judgments; defers to trial court credibility)
- State ex rel. Nixon v. Russell, 45 S.W.3d 487 (Mo.App. W.D.2001) (standard of review and credibility deference)
- State ex rel. Dalton v. Mosley, 286 S.W.2d 721 (Mo.1956) (quo warranto proper to challenge usurpation of power)
- Southers v. City of Farmington, 263 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. banc 2008) (official immunity limits when authority is not legitimate)
- Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1998) (legislative immunity requires legitimate legislative function)
- Saunders v. Burgess, 264 S.W.2d 339 (Mo.1954) (forfeiture when misconduct occurs)
- McKittrick v. Williams, 144 S.W.2d 98 (Mo. banc 1940) (cum onere responsibilities; misconduct supports forfeiture)
- State ex rel. Ashcroft v. Riley, 590 S.W.2d 903 (Mo. banc 1979) (willful misconduct supports removal)