328 S.W.3d 434
Mo. Ct. App.2010Background
- WCAC and Hamilton sued Webster County Recorder for Sunshine Law violations over electronic copy fees that allegedly exceeded actual costs.
- MLTA intervened as plaintiff; RAM intervened as defendant; Webster County sought intervention and later intervened as a party.
- Pre-2001: public charged $1/page; WCAC/Hamilton charged 12.5 cents; June 1, 2001, new fee agreement offered 12.5 cents to title companies if they limited dissemination; WCAC declined.
- From March 21, 2003: policy raised over-2,000 copies/month to 60 cents/page; Hamilton stopped buying from Atkison; WCAC continued receiving electronically.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Atkison and RAM, holding §59.310.6(2) controls fees for recorded instruments, not Sunshine Law cost rules; Webster County’s summary judgment denied; appeals followed.
- Matter culminates in affirmance of trial court on all liability issues; mootness issues regarding privatization policy deemed non-justiciable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §59.310.6(2) controls fees for electronic copies over the Sunshine Law. | Title Companies: Sunshine Law controls; actual costs limit fees. | Atkison: §59.310.6(2) provides a separate max fee schedule. | §59.310.6(2) controls; fees within its max are lawful. |
| Whether 'page' and 'duplicate copies' apply to electronic records. | Definitions should result in actual-cost limitations for electronic records. | Definitions apply to original copies; duplicates are second/subsequent copies. | 'Page' and 'duplicate copies' apply to electronic records; first copy not subject to cost cap; duplicates governed by actual cost. |
| Whether the recorder’s pricing policy was an unlawful privatization. | Policy turned recorder into profit center beyond statutory authorization. | Pricing within statutory maximums; no privatization prohibited. | No unlawful privatization; pricing within §59.310.6(2) allowed. |
| Whether the charges constitute an unlawful tax. | Fees exceed actual costs; unconstitutional taxation. | Fees authorized by statute; not a tax. | Fees authorized by statute; not unconstitutional taxes. |
| Whether Webster County sovereign immunity bars damages claim. | N/A (not final judgment); immunity applies. | Summary judgment denied; immunity not dispositive on appeal. | Not reviewable as to immunity ruling; affirmed judgment on liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Deaton v. Kidd, 932 S.W.2d 804 (Mo.App.1996) (specific fee provisions trump Sunshine Law cost rules)
- Oregon Co. R-IV Sch. Dist. v. LeMon, 739 S.W.2d 553 (Mo.App.1987) (plain meaning of 'except as otherwise provided by law' governs)
- Murray v. Mo. Highway & Transp. Comm'n, 37 S.W.3d 228 (Mo.banc 2001) (statutory amendments clarifying law may clarify, not change)
- Andresen v. Bd. of Regents of Mo. W. State College, 58 S.W.3d 581 (Mo.App.2001) (amendment adding definition can clarify existing law)
- Dubinsky v. St. Louis Blues Hockey Club, 229 S.W.3d 126 (Mo.App.2007) (statutory meaning given to avoid absurd results)