531 S.W.3d 602
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- The St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners (the Board) was a state agency controlling SLMPD until local control transferred to the City on September 1, 2013 after Proposition A (2012).
- Prior to 2005 the City paid legal defense and settlements for the Board; after Smith v. State (2005) the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) began representing the Board and the legislature amended § 105.726 to provide SLEF coverage and require AGO representation and compensation negotiation with the City.
- Proposition A amended § 105.726 and enacted § 84.345: AGO must continue to represent and SLEF must reimburse claims arising from pre-transfer events; § 105.726.4 requires the AGO and City officials to “meet and negotiate reasonable expenses or charges that will fairly compensate the AGO.”
- AGO began billing the City at $125/hour for post-transfer representation (invoices totaling $439,975 for 3,519.8 agreed hours); parties stipulated hours and rate were reasonable but did not agree on payment or offsets.
- The City and Board paid settlements/judgments totaling $1,608,269.90 between Nov. 7, 2012 and Sept. 1, 2013; the City sued and sought declaratory relief and damages; trial court sided with City on both issues.
- The appellate court reversed in part: it awarded the State $439,975 for AGO fees but affirmed City reimbursement of $1,608,269.90 from the SLEF for pre-transfer payments.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | City's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does § 105.726.4 obligate the City to fairly compensate the AGO $439,975 for post-transfer representation? | Yes — AGO representation was requested/mandated and City must compensate for cost of representation. | No — City had not agreed to pay and trial court found no triggering negotiation. | Held for State: City must pay $439,975 (statutory duty to compensate). |
| 2. Does the statute’s “meet and negotiate” requirement require a successful agreement to trigger payment? | No — "negotiate" means attempt to reach agreement; attempts and meetings suffice. | Yes — trial court treated "negotiate" as requiring an agreement. | Held for State: meeting and attempts to agree satisfy requirement; successful agreement not required. |
| 3. Does "cost of the representation" include attorney’s fees? | Yes — fair compensation necessarily includes attorney fees and related expenses. | No — City argued fees are distinct from costs and not recoverable. | Held for State: "cost" includes attorney’s fees and case-related expenses; $125/hr is fair. |
| 4. Must the State reimburse the City $1,608,269.90 for settlements/judgments paid between Nov. 7, 2012 and Sept. 1, 2013? | No — post-amendment § 105.726.3 limits reimbursement to successor and excludes Board; State argued this precludes reimbursement claimed. | Yes — § 84.345.2 preserves SLEF reimbursement for claims arising from pre-transfer events; City (as successor) is entitled to reimbursement. | Held for City: State must reimburse $1,608,269.90 for pre-transfer settlements/judgments. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sayad v. Zych, 642 S.W.2d 907 (Mo. banc) (establishment and state control of St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners)
- Smith v. State, 152 S.W.3d 275 (Mo. banc) (Board and officers entitled to SLEF coverage; prompted § 105.726 amendments)
- City of Kansas City v. Chastain, 420 S.W.3d 550 (Mo. banc) (standard of review for court-tried civil cases/declaratory judgments)
- Pearson v. Koster, 367 S.W.3d 36 (Mo. banc) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- Cooling v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 491 S.W.3d 253 (Mo. App. E.D.) (statutory construction should avoid absurd results)
- Lincoln Cty. Stone Co., Inc. v. Koenig, 21 S.W.3d 142 (Mo. App. E.D.) (look to legislative purpose when construing statutes)