*1 аl., FARINELLA, Respondents, v. Joseph et CROFT, Respondent,
Delicia Authority
Housing of St. Louis
County, Appellant.
No. 78632. Missouri,
Supreme Court
En Banc.
May Jacobson, Clayton, Appellant.
Joe D. for Louis, Alverson, Respon- for Susan M. St. dents.
WHITE, Judge. brought a
Respondent landlords rent against respondent Delicia action seeking “rent in the sum of Croft $484.00 judgment, plus rent to date of restitution of joined apрel- premises and costs.” Croft County Housing Authority lant Louis St. (“Housing Authority”) as third defen- court, dant. After before the division, judg- the court entered against for ment favor of landlords Croft Authority against Housing $77.00 Housing Authority appealed. The $3311.00. District, Appeals, orderеd Court Eastern Rule the case transferred to this Court. juris- dismiss for lack of 83.02. We diction.
756 right appeal purely
“The to Gallagher, is stat ex rel. Rothermich v. 816 S.W.2d and, (Mo. 1991). utory 194, give where a posses- statute does not a 200 banc Rent and right appeal, right petitions pray to no siоn exists.” Christman for rent due to date of Richardson, 807, v. (Mo.App. 818 S.W.2d 308 because the landlord-tenant statute 1991). provides, cause, governs hearing Section “on the appeals 512.180 from said the cases tried shall render ... for judges. before assoсiate circuit 535.040, § amount of grants aggrieved party It rent then due.” in a civil case RSMo petition claiming 1994. The right is rent due at to a trial de “in novo all cases hearing, the time of the which in in- petition most damages where the claims not to judgment. Judg- stances will be the date of exceed five thousand dollars” unless the thirty days ment must be rendered within sitting probate was in the division or par- associate circuit division trials unless the assigned had been to hear case on the longer period tiеs consent to a of time. procedures applicable record under before 517.111, § 1994. The amount of dam- § judges. circuit RSMo 1994. will, therefore, ages claimed at be known “Only where the case does not fit this de hearing. time of If the rent then due ex- scription may directly appeal dollars, ceeds five thousand the court and the Christman, appellate court.” 818 at S.W.2d parties know the trial will be on record and 308. appeals. lies with the court of If posses for rent and оpen-ended posses- nature of rent and damages sion exceeding claims not five thou petitions preclude sion does not all trials de dollars, sand appellant’s sole recourse is a novo, provides, because “[a]p- section 535.110 trial de novo under section 512.180.1. plieations appeals for trials de novo and shall Christman, 308; 818 S.W.2d at State ex rel. be allowed and conducted in the manner Service, Airport Benton v. Limousine 791 provided RSMo; chapter 512 ....” 482, (Mо.App.1990). Appellant S.W.2d 483 535.110, § pos- RSMo 1994. If all rent and argues petition asking for “rent to date of petitions following statutory session lan- judgment” open possibility left of dam guage open-ended qualify were too to for dollars, ages exceeding making five thousand regardless trial de novo of the amount inapplicable. section 512.180.1 See Kohnen controversy, legislature not would have Hameed, (Mo.App. 894 S.W.2d 199 provisions included trial de novo in section 1995) (damages for unlawful dеtainer action Furthermore, pleadings 535.110. in the asso- dependent on cumulative number of months ciate circuit division are to be informal ab- premises, tenants hold over on so amount directing sent the court’s discretion other- necеssarily claimed not less than five thou 517.031, § Evaluating wise. RSMo 1994. dollars). sand Respondent counters dam to determine the amount of dam- ages ascertained at the date of trial did not ages hearing at the time of harmonizes the dollars; therefоre, exceed five thousand sec possession, ap- related statutes on rent and governs appeal appellant tion 512.180.1 and is division, peals from the only entitled to a trial de novo. The conflict procedure in the associate circuit division. interpretation statutory language over damages To demand an exact amount of damages “where the not to exceeding not five thousand dollars on the five exceed thousand dollars” concerns when right face of the when filed before a damages the amount of is evaluated. contrary only to trial novo de attaches is Section 512.180 is silent as to the time at scheme, statutory to the current to but which the court ascertains the amount of development possession historical of rent and damages To claimed. construe the statute and related statutes. Before rent and adequately, we magistrate consider other statutes actions filed in werе materia, 535.020, pari supposing ag- § to statutes are be courts. RSMo 1969. Parties consistently harmoniously. grieved by judgment magis- in a read State rendered thou- together, the addition of the five appealed to circuit court for Read tratе court 512.180, limit to section 512.180.1retained § sand dollar de novo. trial de novo cases tradition- 1978, magistrate reform in With courts, magistrate associ- ally later heard abolished courts were and duties divisions, appeal of and allowed *3 assignеd circuit associate court were to traditionally brought circuit before cases usually re- judges. These divisions are now Reading into the dol- five thousand courts. associate divisions of the ferred to as circuit cases limit a bar to a whole class of lar judges heard circuit courts. Associate circuit ignores traditionally by novo served trial de these possession and actions because rent gleaned legislative as from legislative intent have been and deter- cases could “heard statutory history the for rent scheme assign- by magistrate judge a mined without possession actions. acting judge provi- as an circuit under ment 1, January in 1979.” sions of law effect on the Missouri Constitution underscores The 535.020, 478.225.2(8), § § RSMo 1978. See triаl de novo default for concept of as the RSMo 1978. acting from associate circuit divisions review magistrate of within the traditional confines the cir- Accompanying creation of associate 27(5) V, jurisdiction. Article section сourt divisions, cuit section 512.180 was divided provides: subsections, describing the into two the first from a right novo: The to and method of review right to trial de appealable judgment or order of an final Any person aggrieved by 1. a judge, municipal judge, assoсiate circuit or jury in a case tried without a before an acting jurisdiction within of when so the judge, circuit than an asso- associate other jurisdiction within cases heretofore judge sitting probate circuit in the ciate magistrate municiрal courts the former or assigned or who has to hear division been law, shall, provided by until otherwise be procedures the case on record under circuit de novo before a or another associ- applicable judgеs, before have circuit shall judge within the circuit.... right a trial de novo. provide cases The law does otherwise for setting and the second cases be- forth when than five dollars in con- with more thousand judge fore an associate circuit shall be on the troversy, majority posses- but the of rent and appeal appellate with to court: record an parameters cases fall within the of the sion any jury 2. In case tried an with a before traditional scheme. assignment circuit associate or on “[P]roper appeal a from procedures applicable under such before by on an associate circuit rests entered judges.... circuit on facts and not labels.” Federated 512.180, § 1978. RSMo Rеnt and Jones, Mortgage & Investment 850 Co. clearly types fell under 1 as cases subsection 113, (Mo.App.1993). analy 115 S.W.2d procedures to of cases not be heard under specific case must fact to sis each be by applicable judges before and sub- circuit bring if the facts the case within ascertain by ject appeal to trial de novo. or Id. section 512.180.1 section 512.180.2. light most favor read the We 512.180.1 was amended 1984 to Section plaintiff as 512.180.1, able to the of the date only § сivil apply to cases. RSMo standard, hearing. this Under Supp.1984. In circuit division $3,388.00, damages of not claimed an amount jurisdictional limits raised from five to were 478.255, Appellant thousand in excess of five dollars. § fifteen thousand dollars. time, had a to de nоvo phrase, At this “in all cases 1986. court, appeal appellate an to an court. damages not to
where statutory con five thousand was added to “An without sanction exceed dollars” authority upon § an section 512.180.1. fers nо 758
except First, to enter an dismissing ap- order says the statute is not silent. It peal.” Aldridge v. First Financial Insur- determines the amount claimed. Co., ance 828 (Mo.App.1992). places S.W.2d It party filing pleadings on the duty affirmative to state whether the amount Aрpeal dismissed. of the claim exceeds five thousand dollars. By stating jurisdictional amount in the negative, section excep- 512.180.1 creates an BENTON, LIMBAUGH, JJ., PRICE and tion general recovery rule that “[i]f concur. money demanded, be no dollar amount or ROBERTSON, figure J., shall be included in except the demand separate dissents in jurisdictional opinion proper determine the filed. au- thority....” 509.050.1(2), § RSMo 1994. *4 HOLSTEIN, C.J., COVINGTON, J., 509.050.1(2) Reading together section with opinion ROBERTSON, concur in 512.180.1, J.. section necessarily one must con- cludе that when a in filed the associ- ROBERTSON, Judge, dissenting. ate circuit division fails to state a dollar amount, prayer anticipates possibility respectfully I dissent. that damages amount of to which the plaintiff is entitled exceeds five thousand dol- question The in appel- this case is whether lars. lants must seek a trial de novo or have the appellate review an where Second, majority assumes that judge judgment against enters them claim must state an exact dollar amount and in an amount less than five thousand dollars that such an accurately amount is not know- original petition where the open-ended is in able at the time the landlord files the rent- 512.180.1, its claim for damages. Section and-possession action. I do not read section controls. That provides statute require 512.180.1 to specificity. such The part: in relevant requires only statute party that seeking damages say whether the amount claimed is Any person aggrieved by judgment in greater or less than five thousand dollars. a civil ease jury tried without a before an By making statement, party that seeking associate circuit ... shall have the damages discovery determines what sort of is right of a trial de novo in all cases where prior hearing, available whether the damages not to ex- trial that follows will be on or off the record ceed five thousand dollars. aggrieved and the pur- course must added.) (Emphasis judgment sue to set against aside a rendered him or her. The statute is flexible. Thе majority The assumes that the amount of word; plaintiffs first is not the final actually by entered an associ- permit the rules petitions amendment of at determines whether any plaintiff judicial process time a finds the or trial de novo is aggrieved available to an too keep slow to the amount due under five party seeking judgment. to overturn the thousand dollars. nothing There is sup- section 512.180.1 to port Instead, assumption. that the statute great It makes sense to me to establish the says determines whether early litigation, rules rather than until wait appellate de novo or review follows. the last hearing— moment—the time of the to make a as to what kind of ease majority’s reasoning willing- and its pending. is I think legisla- that is what the ness to рari read other statutes materia placed emphasis ture intended when it its on depend premise on the that section 512.180 pleading. the time of “is silent as to the time at which the court damages ascertains the amount of claimеd.” Given pleadings, the state of the I believe 756). (Op. at Appeals, District, the Court of Eastern had appellate jurisdiction in this case. As that Court, I the case to transferred this pursuant jurisdiction to arti- we have
believe Y, I
cle 10 of the constitution. would section Instead, appeal. I would dismiss the pleadings expressly these did not
decide that damages
limit to less than thousand five
dollars, that section judg- of review of the
determines the course
ment, case to court of and retransfer the
appeals remaining review
issues the case. expressed, I respectfully
For reasons
dissent.
J.M., al., Appellants, et COMPANY, Respondent.
SHELL OIL
No. 78562. Missouri,
Supreme Court
En Banc.
May 25,1996.
Rehearing Denied June