State ex rel. City of St. Louis, Relator, vs. The Honorable Joseph P. Whyte, Respondent., SC101315

Background

Roberts filed a putative class action seeking a refund of solid-waste fees after alleging the City failed to separately collect recyclables and yard waste. 1
The City charged residents monthly solid-waste fees through water bills, and Ordinance 68698 described the fee as funding solid-waste services to protect public health and welfare. 2
After 2011, the City sometimes separately collected recyclables and yard waste, but other times mixed them with trash, and later terminated the program. 3
Roberts abandoned contract and unjust-enrichment theories after the City invoked section 432.070, leaving only money had and received. 4
The circuit court denied the City's motion to dismiss, the court of appeals denied prohibition, and this Court issued a preliminary writ. 5
The City sought a permanent writ, arguing sovereign immunity and section 432.070 barred Roberts' claim. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does sovereign immunity bar Roberts' money-had-and-received claim? 7	Roberts says money had and received is exempt from sovereign immunity.	The City says sovereign immunity bars this equitable claim absent an exception.	Yes; sovereign immunity applies. 8
Did Roberts plead a statutory waiver or consent to suit? 9	Roberts relies on a city-code provision authorizing the Collector to sue.	The City says that provision lacks any sue-and-be-sued waiver.	No waiver or consent was shown. 10
Does section 432.070 bar Roberts' claim as a disguised contract theory? 11	Roberts says her claim arises from law, not contract.	The City says the claim is an implied-in-fact contract barred by section 432.070.	Yes; the claim is barred as an implied-in-fact contract theory. 12
Does the proprietary-function exception apply? 13	Roberts says recycling and yard-waste collection are proprietary because the City charges fees and may profit.	The City says garbage and solid-waste collection are governmental functions.	No; solid-waste collection remains governmental. 14

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Bailey v. Sengheiser, 692 S.W.3d 20 (Mo. banc 2024) (writ of prohibition may issue to prevent excess of authority or irreparable harm 15)
State ex rel. Dep't of Nat. Res. v. Crane, 708 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. banc 2025) (writ appropriate when defendant is entitled to sovereign immunity 16)
State ex rel. Morales v. Alessi, 679 S.W.3d 467 (Mo. banc 2023) (immunity from liability includes immunity from suit 17)
Ramirez v. Mo. Prosecuting Att'ys' & Cir. Att'ys' Ret. Sys., 694 S.W.3d 432 (Mo. banc 2024) (sovereign immunity reviewed de novo 18)
Metro. St. Louis Sewer Dist. v. City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, 476 S.W.3d 913 (Mo. banc 2016) (sovereign immunity is the rule unless an exception applies 19)
Richardson v. City of St. Louis, 293 S.W.3d 133 (Mo. App. 2009) (plaintiff must plead facts showing an immunity exception 20)
Bell v. Shelter Gen. Ins. Co., 701 S.W.3d 614 (Mo. banc 2024) (legal conclusions are disregarded 21)
Poke v. Indep. Sch. Dist., 647 S.W.3d 18 (Mo. banc 2022) (plaintiff must show the legislature expressly waived immunity 22)
Kubley v. Brooks, 141 S.W.3d 21 (Mo. banc 2004) (sovereign immunity can bar money-had-and-received claims absent an exception 23)
Bush v. State Highway Comm'n of Mo., 46 S.W.2d 854 (Mo. 1932) ('sue and be sued' language can waive immunity 24)
V.S. DiCarlo Constr. Co. v. State, 485 S.W.2d 52 (Mo. 1972) (sue-and-be-sued clauses can waive immunity for certain agencies 25)
State ex rel. New Liberty Hosp. Dist. v. Pratt, 687 S.W.2d 184 (Mo. banc 1985) (hospital district sue-and-be-sued clause supported waiver 26)
Palo v. Stangler, 943 S.W.2d 683 (Mo. App. 1997) (agency sue-and-be-sued language supported waiver 27)
Winston v. Reorganized Sch. Dist. R-2, Lawrence Cnty., Miller, 636 S.W.2d 324 (Mo. banc 1982) (only the legislature may decide whether immunity is waived 28)
State ex inf. Hannah ex rel. Christ v. City of St. Charles, 676 S.W.2d 508 (Mo. banc 1984) (municipal powers exist only as limited by statute 29)
Howard Cnty. Ambulance Dist. v. City of Fayette, 549 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. 2018) (section 432.070 voids noncompliant municipal contracts 30)
Withers v. City of Lake St. Louis, 318 S.W.3d 256 (Mo. App. 2010) (section 432.070 protects municipalities and bars quasi-contract theories 31)
Bride v. City of Slater, 263 S.W.2d 22 (Mo. 1953) (no recovery on implied contract or estoppel when section 432.070 is not satisfied 32)
Donovan v. Kansas City, 175 S.W.2d 874 (Mo. banc 1943) (predecessor statute barred implied or quasi-contract recovery 33)
Mays-Maune & Assocs., Inc. v. Werner Bros., 139 S.W.3d 201 (Mo. App. 2004) (section 432.070 precludes implied-contract recovery 34)
Goodyear v. Junior Coll. Dist. of St. Louis, 540 S.W.2d 621 (Mo. App. 1976) (section 432.070 bars quantum meruit and implied contract claims 35)
Karpierz v. Easley, 68 S.W.3d 565 (Mo. App. 2002) (money-had-and-received claim based on statutory violation was not barred by section 432.070 36)
Investors Title Co. v. Hammonds, 217 S.W.3d 228 (Mo. banc 2007) (section 432.070 did not bar recovery for fees charged in violation of statute 37)
Southers v. City of Farmington, 263 S.W.3d 603 (Mo. banc 2008) (distinguishes governmental from proprietary municipal functions 38)
Dallas v. City of St. Louis, 338 S.W.2d 39 (Mo. 1960) (garbage collection by a city is a governmental function 39)
State ex rel. Bd. of Trs. of City of N. Kan. City Mem'l Hosp. v. Russell, 843 S.W.2d 353 (Mo. banc 1992) (governmental/proprietary analysis looks to the generic nature of the activity 40)