Unverferth v. City of Florissant
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1034
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Appellants (Unverferth and the Cusumanos) received Florissant red‑light camera notices alleging "Violation of Public Safety (Failure to Stop at a Red Light)" and were assessed a $100 fine; the ordinance includes a rebuttable presumption that the vehicle owner was the driver and classifies the violation as a non‑moving infraction without stated penalties.
- Florissant contracted with ATS to operate cameras; Notices instruct payment to municipal court and state payment constitutes admission of guilt; Notices often omit a court date.
- Appellants brought a six‑count class petition alleging: declaratory relief (ordinance invalid/conflicts with state law), unjust enrichment (Unverferth), self‑incrimination (waived on appeal), due process violations, and civil conspiracy (not appealed).
- The trial court granted motions to dismiss by Florissant and ATS, dismissing all counts with prejudice on standing, waiver, estoppel, and other grounds. Appellants appealed.
- The appellate court (majority) affirmed dismissal of the Cusumanos’ declaratory/injunctive claims (they have adequate municipal remedies), reversed dismissal as to Unverferth on standing, waiver and estoppel (remanding estoppel for discovery), held some ordinance aspects conflicted with state law (points/reporting) and reversed dismissal of related counts, and remanded for further proceedings on notice/due‑process issues; it affirmed dismissal as to rebuttable presumption and vagueness claims and affirmed denial of restitution under the voluntary‑payment doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge ordinance/procedure | Unverferth: she was directly harmed by the ordinance and lacked adequate notice (no court date), so she may challenge it despite paying fine | Florissant/ATS: paying the fine and not using municipal procedures shows no injury/waiver; thus no standing | Reversed as to Unverferth — she pleaded lack of notice and was directly affected; standing exists. |
| Waiver/Estoppel (collateral attack after payment) | Unverferth: she had no reasonable opportunity to raise constitutional claims in municipal court because the Notice omitted a court date; payment does not estop her | Respondents: voluntary payment and failure to litigate in municipal court preclude later challenges (claim preclusion/estoppel) | Waiver reversed; estoppel reversed as to pleading stage and remanded for discovery — factual issue. Dismissal affirmed for Cusumanos (adequate remedy at law). |
| Validity of ordinance under city power (police power vs. revenue) | Appellant: ordinance is a revenue scheme disguised as safety regulation and exceeds police power | Florissant: as a home‑rule city with police‑power/delegated authority, the ordinance is a valid traffic‑safety regulation | Court: Florissant had authority to enact under home‑rule and Section 304.120; but whether primary purpose was revenue is a factual question — remand for discovery. |
| Conflict with state law: treatment of moving violations and points reporting | Appellant: ordinance prohibits/rules running red lights but labels them non‑moving and avoids statutorily required reporting/point assessment — conflicts with Sections 302.225, 302.302, 302.010 | Florissant: ordinance does not conflict with state law; similar ordinances upheld (e.g., Nottebrok) | Court: the ordinance (as worded and applied) regulates conduct that is a moving violation but purports to classify it non‑moving, thereby conflicting with state point‑assessment/reporting statutes; trial court erred — reversed and remanded. |
| Procedural due process / notice / Rule 37.33 compliance | Appellant: Notices lacked a court date and adequate contest instructions, denying meaningful opportunity to be heard | Respondents: procedures are adequate; appellant failed to use municipal remedies | Court: pleading that Notice omitted court date and required violators to infer process states a Rule violation and due‑process claim; reversed dismissal and remanded for discovery on notice/hearing adequacy. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of St. Louis v. Cook, 221 S.W.2d 468 (Mo. 1949) (upholding municipal rebuttable presumption based on registration for parking violations)
- Smith v. City of St. Louis, 409 S.W.3d 404 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2013) (red‑light notices must provide certain procedural information; Rule 37.33 analysis)
- City of Creve Coeur v. Nottebrok, 356 S.W.3d 252 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2011) (upholding a red‑light camera ordinance under police power; considered in comparison)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (framework for balancing interests in procedural due process)
- Automobile Club of Mo. v. City of St. Louis, 334 S.W.2d 355 (Mo. 1960) (ordinance enacted under police power may not be a tax in disguise; court must examine primary purpose)
- State ex rel. York v. Daugherty, 969 S.W.2d 223 (Mo. 1998) (discussing voluntary performance of judgments and estoppel/waiver principles)