569 S.W.3d 420
Mo.2019Background
- George Richey and John Wright each pleaded guilty to misdemeanors and were sentenced to jail with credit for time served; county jail "board bills" were later billed to them.
- Circuit clerks included the jail board bills among the itemized "court costs" entered in their fee reports (Richey: $3,150 then an additional $2,275; Wright: $1,358.28).
- Both men made partial payments, were repeatedly summoned for "payment review" hearings, and Richey was re-incarcerated on a warrant after failing to pay what the court had taxed as costs.
- Each filed a motion to retax costs arguing there is no statutory authority to classify jail board bills as court costs; both motions were overruled by the circuit courts.
- The Missouri Supreme Court granted review to decide whether jail board bills may be taxed as court costs and reversed, holding statutes do not expressly authorize taxing jail board bills as court costs and directing the circuits to remove those charges from the fee reports.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jail "board bills" may be taxed as "court costs" | Richey/Wright: No statutory authority; costs are statutory only | State: Statutes defining court costs and related provisions (e.g., §488.010, §§550.010/.030) permit treating incarceration charges as "miscellaneous charges" or costs | Court: Reversed—no express, unambiguous statutory authorization to tax board bills as court costs |
| Whether failure to pay a board bill can lead to incarceration for nonpayment of "court costs" | Richey: Court improperly jailed him for nonpayment of amounts it mischaracterized as court costs | State: Treating board bills as costs allowed enforcement like other costs | Court: Failure to pay board-bill debt cannot be enforced as failure to pay court costs; Richey’s re-incarceration on that basis was improper |
| Whether appellants are entitled to refunds of amounts paid toward board bills | Wright/Richey: Payments exceeded non-board cost items; seek refund | State: Appellants remain liable for board-bill debt under §221.070; no refund unless debt satisfied | Court: No refund while appellants still owe board-bill balances; but remove board-bill entries from fee reports; apply payments appropriately (Richey’s additional board bill incurred during improper incarceration must be removed) |
| Proper collection mechanism for delinquencies on board bills vs. court costs | Appellants: Collection must follow statutory process for board-bill debt, not procedures for court costs | State: Overlap in collection authority; sections contemplate incarceration fees as costs | Court: Statutory scheme distinguishes board-bill collection (§221.070 and amended §488.5028) from court-cost collection; collection remedies for board bills are separate and do not make them taxable court costs |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johnson, 524 S.W.3d 505 (Mo. banc 2017) (statutory interpretation of cost statutes reviewed de novo and costs are creatures of statute)
- State ex rel. Merrell v. Carter, 518 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. banc 2017) (costs require express statutory authority)
- Cramer v. Smith, 168 S.W.2d 1039 (Mo. banc 1943) (no liability for costs absent statutory authorization)
- Jacoby v. Mo. Valley Drain Dist., 163 S.W.2d 930 (Mo. banc 1942) (costs cannot be taxed without a statute permitting it)
- Multidata Sys. Int’l Corp. v. Zhu, 107 S.W.3d 334 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) (statute expressly authorized special process server fees as costs)
- Wilson v. Good, 749 S.W.2d 17 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988) (no express statutory authority to tax private subpoena server fees as costs)
- Herson v. Chicago & A.R. Co., 18 Mo. App. 439 (Mo. App. 1885) (retaxing of costs after final judgment is proper)