State Ex Rel. Webster v. Lehndorff Geneva, Inc.

are Appellant’s and sentence conviction WEBSTER, rel. L.

affirmed. STATE ex William Missouri, Attorney General Respondent, C.J., DONNELLY, BILLINGS, ROBERTSON, RENDLEN and HIGGINS, JJ., concur. INC., GENEVA, Texas LEHNDORFF al., Appellants. corporation, et

BLACKMAR, J., separate concurs opinion filed. No. 69432. concurring.

BLACKMAR, Judge, Supreme Court En Banc. My impression original was prosecutor seriously out of bounds was Feb. argument intimating in his rebuttal giv participants in the crime had the other information

en statements which contained Examination of

adverse to the defendant. persuades me that claim transcript wholly founda

of retaliation is without so, although I

tion and I do not believe that did, I judge ruled as the trial do

would have is indicated. I am

not believe that reversal judges’ apparent

still concerned about trial keep closing

unwillingness prosecutors’ Ant bounds. See State v.

arguments in

wine, 1987) S.W.2d 51

(Blackmar, J., dissenting). principal opinion

I also believe

unnecessarily “halfway holds that a house” place

is a of confinement within mean- 565.032(9),

ing legis- 1986. The § thought escape

lature must have person presented

of a confined substantial

dangers during escape both and while large. evidentiary escapee is at Absent

description of confinement nature halfway house of the restrictions

imposed, I am not sure that the same dan-

gers adequately manifest. The record statutory aggravating

shows other circum- finding of this

stances and so circum- judgment. necessary

stance is not opin- respects

In all I concur other judgment

ion and affirmance. entities or-

and its related business were dered to divest themselves within Ap- of Missouri farmland owned. pellants the trial court should have claim prosecute for failure dismissed case constitutionality and attack Reeves, Caruthersville, ap- James E. 350. Affirmed. pellants. divestiture, for filed petition The State’s Gen., Webster, Atty. Kent William L. 10, 1977, alleged on that Janu- November Rauschenbach, Paul M. and Asst. Barta Lehndorff, al., 6,1977, acquired et title ary respondent. Attys. Gen., City, for Jefferson agricultural of approximately to 2700 acres County, in Mississippi vio- land in HIGGINS, Judge. 350.015, 1986.1 The of section lation 350, RSMo, their motion to dismiss on Chapter Lehn- defendants filed to Pursuant Inc., Corporation, 1977. The court overruled Geneva, a December Texas dorff herds, breeding production Corporations engage the of raw to in farm- their for not 1. 350.015. manufacture, 28, 1975, pharmaceutical September ing-exceptions. no materials for —After farming already engaged processing, related corporation not in food additives and chemical resale; farming; any corpora- engage products, in nor shall and not for shall tion, acquire, (6) operated by directly indirectly, Agricultural corpora- or or otherwise land a interest, legal, purposes dehydration or an whether beneficial alfalfa ex- obtain tion for the of otherwise, agricultural any only lying land in clusively in title to as to said within and lands state; however, provid- restric- dehydrating plant, provided, this a and miles of fifteen apply not to crops set forth in this section shall be tions raised thereon shall ed further said following: processing and not for for further used form; original resale in (1) pur- for A bona fide encumbrance taken interest, (7) by Any acquired an edu- when poses security; of cational, profit religious, not for or charitable (2) family corporation or an autho- A farm association; corporation pro or or forma corporation as defined in section rized farm (8) any Agricultural therein 350.010; land or interest acquired by corporation a a other than (3) Agricultural capable of be- land and land corpora- corporation or authorized farm farming by corporation farm ing used owned a as for 350.010, tion, immedi- in section for including as defined September of the normal nonfarming purposes. A potential use in ownership or expansion a rate not to ate corporation may of such acres, agricultural land in twenty percent, hold such in measured in exceed necessary may acreage to its non- five-year period, agricultural as be any land and such or however, operation; provided, capable being farming of for which is farm business used amount, development pending of by corporation measured that leased a in acres, may purposes, not acreage such land land for nonfarm in not to exceed the under lease 28, 1975, except a September under lease to for to as be used family such of unit, or acreage expan- a farm farm the additional for normal and except corporation, percent or when twenty farm a in an authorized sion at rate not to exceed options, through ownership, lease- five-year acreage period, the additional controlled holds, and agreements by a necessary, other reasonably be or or whether to owned agreement with the by require- entered into an corporation, which has leased a to meet the pursuant to New regulations; States of America pollution of United ments control (Title Housing Community of (4) operated wholly IV the Act A for research or Development 42 U.S.C. including Act of experimental purposes, seed research and Urban amended, 3901-3914), subsidiary as- production or a or experimentation as seed stock corporation; provided sign genetic improvements, of such a that for (9) by corpora- Agricultural acquired a lands be inci- sales from such farm shall commercial voluntary conveyance experimental objec- or of law or dental to the research debts, by any procedure or corporation; collection tives thereon, a lien or claim (5) Agricultural operated by for the enforcement otherwise; mortgage pro- nursery plants, or purposes growing created whether vided, tion for the may exclusively any corporation for ten grain hold vegetables, for or used fruit debt, acquired payment distilling brewing winemaking purposes real estate or or otherwise, longer resale, and for cropland foreclosure for forest and not for production law; provided by period may poultry, products, as be poultry fish or (10) provisions farming, production registered sections 350.010 mushroom raising hybrid apply improve to the breeding shall farmers to 350.030 stock for sale to that motion December 1979. The de- men propriety can differ about the responded fendants their court, filed answer and action taken the trial then it can- attorney general’s to the interrogatories in not be said that the trial court abused its April lay of 1980. The case then dormant Appellants discretion. Id. have not met 11, 1988, July until the court when advised establishing burden an abuse of parties the case would be dis- discretion this case. prosecution missed for want of unless some acknowledge by August delay

action occurred 1983. The attorney general require office of alone does not then entered dismissal failure appearance prosecute. attorney delay of another In addition filed summary judgment. its motion for currently depressed claim the market Defendants, on then prices penalized could cause them to be far filed a motion to dismiss for failure seriously more than had the case been prosecute. lay The case dormant for near- brought Appellants’ to fruition earlier. ly May 3 more until when sustained, however, claim cannot be be attorney general presented the motion they produce cause failed to have affidavits summary judgment. The court sus- support or other evidence to this claim. summary tained that motion and entered appellants Nor have cited cases which re judgment April quire dismissal in these circumstances. truly Had the defendants been concerned Appellants contend the trial court impact prejudicial delay about the of the granting summary erred in the motion for prosecution they could have called their judgment suit should have not, motion to dismiss. Because did prosecute. been dismissed for failure to the trial court could found have that de general The rule is that a dismissal for fendants, quietly accepted who the benefits prosecution want of is within the sound farmland, ownership of suffered no discretion of the trial court. Shirrell v. prejudice and should not now be heard to Co., (Mo. Missouri Edison S.W.2d complain delay. of 1976). appellate banc Reversal an court argue requires finding the trial court RSMo, equal protection violates the clauses abused its discretion. Id. at 448. Because of the Missouri and United Constitu- States ruling discretionary presumed is it is arbitrarily tions because it and without rea- appellant correct and bears the burden of (1) sonable basis: allows certain showing an abuse of discretion. Id. Judi engage agricultural tions to activities cial discretion is abused a trial when defendants; (2) not others such as al- but ruling clearly against logic court’s is corporations not lows individuals but the circumstances then before the court engage in as defendants to own land and arbitrary and is so and unreasonable as to activities; (3) agricultural any corpo- justice shock the sense of and allows indicate a consideration; prior lack of if if careful reasonable ration to own farmland owned hogs designed operations in connection with ration and which trust is created a share- characteristics, improve quality, profitabili- family holder of the farm or autho- ty, marketability hybrid hogs through or However, se- corporation. rized farm a bank or breeding genetic improvement lective where the raising and company acting trust in the administration primary purpose of such livestock management trust or a investment trust hogs produce hybrid is to to be used primary purpose making formed with the improve- farmers for the and livestock raisers managing income-producing investments of herds; quality ment of the of their purchasing property agricultural and real estate (11) company acting A bank or trust as ad- primary with trust funds with the benefits ac- ministrator or executor under the terms of a cruing to investors or shareholders in the trust will or trustee under the terms of a testamenta- exempt provisions of sections ry or inter of a vivos trust created the owner 350.010 to 350.030. farm, family trust, testamentary or an inter vivos or principal of which is shares of a fami- ly corpo- farm or authorized farm

«05 in- 28, 1975; (4) singles out least of its net receives at two-thirds princi- farming. cannot appellants, whose shareholders come from Thus exempt pally Europeans, secondary for forced divestiture for such be a business family Missouri investment at a time when corporations. A farm in- actively encourages foreign Missouri corporation in at one-half the least which from the Far East. vestment relat- family are members of a stockholders specified manner and ed to each other in a clause, as it equal protection The operation must include in which active relating to eco applies to classifications ownership having interest person least one regulation, requires that such nomic exercising management control. some rationally a le classifications be related to acquire Nonexempt corporations cannot interest, gitimate New Or state corporations. any interest Dukes, 96 S.Ct. leans statute, forms effect (1976). classification 49 L.Ed.2d 511 Such es- the rational basis for the classification disadvantage of a operate cannot to the tablished, prevent concentration of suspect impinge upon a fundamen class land, production of and the right. Reg constitutional Bd. tal therefrom, food in the hands business Giffen, 651 istration v. corporations to the detriment of traditional 1983), citing, Indepen San Antonio corporate aggregations units Rodriguez, dent School District persons primarily engaged natural in farm- 93 S.Ct. 36 L.Ed.2d U.S. Thus, large ing. publicly held suspect Because are not a acquiring prevented operat- and are from agricultural ownership class and land is legisla- ing large tracts of farmland. The right, appel a fundamental constitutional apparently superior ture believed arguments focus on the lants’ assertion of and other business resources financial corporations the of classification un corporations would have a detrimen- these unreasonable, chapter arbitrary, der 350 is farming entities. tal effect on traditional and without rational bases. the cyclical is nature of This because the Appellants’ re- arguments first two are de- farming industry periodically causes jected per- because rational bases exist large, pressed markets and losses which mitting corporations” (section “authorized corporations better able to diversified are 1986)2 350.010(2), family RSMo and farm fanning enti- Thus the traditional sustain. (section 350.010(5), competitive operate at a disad- ties would 1986)3 excluding to own farmland while vantage. nonexempt appellants. such as prohib- of The statute also has the effect corporation An authorized is one in which controlling iting corporations, already persons large all shareholders and are natural 350.010(2) any family corporation” daughters-in-law such member 2. “Authorized of farm law, corporation meeting following according means a standards: and to the rules of the common person one of whose stockholders is least shareholders, (a) farm, actively operating residing All of other than and or on estate, trusts, or revocable and irrevocable corporation are a none of whose stockholders persons; natural entering prohibited by into from section 350.015 (b) It must receive or of its two-thirds more farming subject farming, is or which in this total net income from as defined expansion provisions of section the controlled section; .... 350.015; corpora- provided that a farm qualify 350.010(5) not cease to as such hereunder corporation" shall “Family farm means bequest any gift, corporation incorporated purpose devise or reason a farming for the oper- ownership agricultural voting actively person A and shares of stock. to, include, voting ating in which at least one-half of the stock not be limited a farm shall but held and at least one-half the stockholders person ownership interest in a family who has an are members of a to each other related some exercises and degree consanguinity af- within the third finity including management control direction. spouses, sons-in-law and processing Appellants’ they and much distribution claim that were denied n commodities, buying protection because, equal European as in- large production vestors, land for of the tracts of they singled were out for enforce- deal, commodity they as to so 350, chapter unsupported ment of vertically integrate industry to an the com- type record. It is the and petitive of traditional en- exclusion subjects the nature of its activities that it tities. 350, scrutiny under not the ori- gin of the This is a case of investment. province legisla- It is within impression, appellants first and have not regulates ture to enact a statute which offered evidence which shows the existence competitive balance of economic forces corporations holding of similar farmland. agricultural production the field of commerce, thereby protecting the welfare rejects appellants’ The Court also comprising of its citizens the traditional they equal protec claim that denied were farming community, statute corporations owning pri- tion because legitimate in- rationally related to a state permitted or to were Supreme Court terest. United States to retain their farmland while those ac against equal upheld a similar statute quiring farmland that date are re after protection Asbury Hospital attack quired to divest their farmland. In County, 326 U.S. 66 S.Ct. Cass Orleans, New 96 S.Ct. (1945), Supreme Court of L.Ed. 6 49 L.Ed.2d the court considered the recently rejected Nebraska such an attack constitutionality lim of an ordinance which against provision in a state constitutional by pro ited the number of street vendors Spire, Bank 223 Neb. Omaha Nat. hibiting except vendors those who sales 389 N.W.2d 269 continuously operated had the same busi analysis compels This the same conclu- eight years. The court held that it ness for appellants’ sion on claim that the statute deprive was not a constitutional violation to rights equal protection violated be- livelihood, of their even some vendors nonexempt cause it authorizes operated legally had thereto where tions, engage in appellants, such as cer- fore, permitting others to continue while farming-related tain activities. Section on, city the could decide that new permits nonexempt corporations to 350.015 likely er were less to have built businesses a hold such an interest incidental to bona up reliance interest. The a substantial encumbrance; fide farmland for re- own that, “Legislatures may imple held court experimentation; search and own farmland program step by step, Katzen ment their production crops process- for for direct 641, 86 S.Ct. Morgan, bach v. resale; ing for and not for own farmland (1966), in L.Ed.2d 878 such eco 16 animals, production the of certain domestic areas, adopting regulations only nomic that intensive; poultry, such as which is not land perceived a evil and partially ameliorate temporarily incidental to en- own farmland deferring complete elimination of the evil claims; forcement of liens or and own regulations.” City New Or to future non-farming use. acquired farmland leans, 2517. 427 96 S.Ct. at U.S. this cre- Appellants fail to establish that lacks holding appellants’ claim Under this arbitrary or is not ates an classification reject argument also merit. This could be supported by a rational basis. The statute regulations are ground ed on the legitimate state rationally related to a future supported by a rational basis that prevents aggregation the interest that it severely ownership was expansion of such to large corporations the farmland restricted. competitive traditional farm- exclusion of Appellants argue language the ing entities. 1986,4 a and harmonize 350.030, dictating com- read the statute as whole RSMo section State possible. provisions reasonably if of the is so pliance the “orders court” with Schult, rel. Bess ex vague that the enforcement indefinite (Mo.App.1940). legislature An act of the provisions are rendered viola- of the statute uncertainty if it is four- cannot be nullified for process clause of the tive of the due interpreta- susceptible any reasonable to the United States teenth amendment Id. tions. the due clause Constitution Constitution, I, the article section Missouri provisions The of the numerous technical 10. exceptions necessary for court make it remedy by appellants, shape a flexibility cited to have to with- The cases 1985), example, For Young, resorting 695 S.W.2d out to divestiture. Werner, Festus v. exemption 656 S.W.2d inapposite in that (Mo.App.1983), voting requires at least one-half of vague so statutes which were by, involve to be and at least one-half of stock held possible of, to a that it ascertain when was the shareholders be members In case it is had occurred. this violation third related to other within the de- each has if clear a violation occurred and when gree consanguinity. The court could court, 350.030, such section is found requiring a certain amount issue order provides: by family “[T]he purchased of stock be members comply or- owning the land shall with the bring compliance into court, ders or if so ordered shall require this rather than dives- with section period have of two from the date of language “orders titure. That the divest itself of land.” such order to give flexibility court” was this intended statute, whole, as a apparent when Appellants’ claim that the statute considered. give does not notice of what exceptions In this to the statute case no may kinds of orders be made is not accu applicable was the were so divestiture Appellants rate. were aware that divesti complain remedy. cannot Appellants legis ture ultimate was the sanction. penalty. they were of this unaware might precise more lature have been by authorizing argument appel- A similar submitted drafting the statute “orders bring provision requiring compli- of the court to into lants is the court requirements sec ance with the orders of fails compliance with 350.015, However, remedy” “a in violation of provide: mean certain RSMo.” this Constitution, I, ing article section apparent when the statute is the Missouri becomes no cases which required This Court is have cited read as a whole. portion county any Attorney general of each in which said to enforce —ven- 350.030. lands, failure, Thereafter, corporation ue-divestment effect of.—If lands are located. attorney general corporation finds a is vio- the lating owning comply with the orders of the land shall 350.030, 350.010 to he shall insti- court, sections period a ordered shall have or if so court Coun- tute an action in the circuit ty, of Cole years order to divest two the date of such foreign corporation, and if a if a two-year limitation itself of such land. any corporation in the circuit court of Missouri running period shall covenant with the title be a agri- corporation any county in which the owns grantee any corporate against to the land if the is in two or cultural lands or located corporate assignee or the successor counties, then in the circuit court of a more except corporation, those of such part county a is located. in which Any by lands not excluded section 350.015. attorney general shall file a notice of the The pendency prescribed shall be divested the time within with recorder of of the action public sale in the ordered sold the court at county any portion which deeds of each in prescribed by for the foreclosure of manner law said lands are located. If the court finds mortgage pay- a real estate for default on being question used in the lands in held or ment. 350.030, to shall violation of sections 350.010 it declaring. The shall file enter an order so court of deeds for record its order with recorder suggest provision requires spe- scope that this in the and nature of the business in penalty. Assuming arguendo cific that this engage. Asbury Hospital, which provision proposi- could stand for such U.S. at 66 S.Ct. at 63. also See tion, appellants’ argument Co., would still fail v. J.P. Lamb Land 401 N.W.2d at 717. given penalty in this case provision because was This of the Missouri Constitution specifically provided in the for statute. expressly holding limits necessary that real estate Appellants argue next re legitimate Chapter business. es- quiring years, sec divestiture within two legitimate tablishes that is not a it tion 350.030violates due because appel- of corporations business such as give op does not defendants a reasonable lants. in portunity to recover the value of their vestment. Under similar circumstances recog courts have also Missouri Co., the court in State v. J.P. Lamb Land corporation’s power nized that a to hold (N.D.1987), held that a 401 N.W.2d 713 real estate could be diminished or de ten-year period existing at the divestiture stroyed expressly if done so clear apply, acquisition time of should rather implication. Hopkins Realty Coates & Co. provision in one-year than the the newer Railway, v. K.C. 328 Mo. Terminal statutes, argu because the was chapter In 43 S.W.2d 817 350 the ably compliance with the law at the time legislature corpo expressly prohibited such acquisition. present In case the owning agricultural rations from lands. initio, purchase illegal ab and thus was appellants’ Because all of attacks on appellants argue they cannot relied on rejected, 350 have been this Court longer period All that due for divestment. grant of affirms the circuit court’s summa- process requires in this situation ry judgment in favor of State. reasonably sale be under conditions calcu lated realize the land’s at the time value BILLINGS, C.J., BLACKMAR, Asbury Hospital, of sale. 326 U.S. at DONNELLY, ROBERTSON and 66 S.Ct. at 64. In this case two RENDLEN, JJ., concur. willing should be sufficient time to locate a buyer, particularly appellants since have WELLIVER, J., separate dissents during possibility of this the nine- known opinion filed. litigation. year course of this WELLIVER, dissenting. Judge, challenge also the consti respectfully I dissent. tutionality of section 350.015 on grounds that it the Missouri conflicts with There is no rational or reasonable basis Constitution, XI, article section which agri- deny appellants’ ownership of engage in provides: “No shall purpose farming. cultural land for the expressly other than that autho business Co., Inc., In Carney v. Hanson Oil law, nor shall it rized its charter or 1985), this Court except as is nec hold real estate stated that: legit essary proper carrying on ” Equal requires Protection Clause [t]he business; imate .... uniformly stand in states to treat all who at issue. the same relation the statute argument rejected

This Sims, 533, Reynolds v. 377 U.S. 84 S.Ct. under the constitution authorization 1362, 12 (1964).... L.Ed.2d 506 In mak not real estate does to own classifications, ing pro must the state right particular confer to own absolute upon ceed a rational basis. Allied pur kinds of unrestricted land or Bowers, Ohio, Inc., 358 U.S. stat Stores v. pose. Corporations are creatures of (1959). 522, 437, legislature 3 L.Ed.2d 480 limited 79 S.Ct. ute which can be

809 guid- reasonable, vagueness doctrine assures must be The classification standards, ance, through explicit bewill upon rest some arbitrary, and must not apply the those who must having fair and afforded to difference ground of statute, avoiding possible arbitrary and object of the relation to the substantial discriminatory application. Grayned v. similarly persons legislation, so that all 108, 92 Rockford, 408 U.S. at treated alike. shall be circumstanced v. ex rel. Williams 2299; State Virginia, 253 U.S. S.Ct. at Royster Co. v. Guano Marsh, 560, (1920). 626 S.W.2d at 233. 412, 40 64 L.Ed. 989 S.Ct. Brown, 694, (Mo. 697 v. 660 S.W.2d State appears 350.015 to be object The of § 1983). out corporate foreign investment

keep reasonable, ration- farming. is no There provides that a 350.030 Section corporations that explain why al basis to owning 350.- violation §§ prior or leased owned “comply must with the orders 010-.030 keep proper- may 1985 legislature did not define the court.” farming, including expan- ty continue court.” 530.030 is “orders of the Section every property by five sion of that 20% forth the vague it does not set corporations not own- denying years, while violation, result may penalties for a leasing that date the ing or land as of penalties by discriminatory application of See farming. opportunity to own land for the trial court. Field, (Mo. v. 106 also Petitt 341 reversed. The cause should be 1960) (excluding merchants retail or other articles trade commodities obtaining a license

personal property arbitrary).

to issue checks is process 350.030 violates the due

Section fourteenth amendment to the

clause of the pro- does not Constitution because it

U.S. in de- any guidance to the trial court

vide

termining appropriate penalty. if vagueness can void for

A statute be clearly defined.

prohibitions City Rockford, 408 U.S. Grayned v. 2294, 2298, 222 33 L.Ed.2d 92 S.Ct. (1972). Missouri, Respondent, STATE violation, Vagueness, as due v. important One is offends two values. BROWN, Appellant. Duane Richard warning require that notice and fair give person ordinary intelli “laws No. 69520. to know

gence opportunity a reasonable may act prohibited, so that he what Supreme Court of Rock Grayned City accordingly.” En Banc. 104, 108, 2294- ford, 408 U.S. 92 S.Ct. 17, 1988. Feb. See 2298-99, 33 L.Ed.2d Co., Connally v. General Construction 126, 127, 385, 391,

269 U.S. S.Ct. v. Okla (1926); Broadrick

L.Ed. 322

homa, 93 S.Ct. ex rel. (1973); L.Ed.2d 830 Marsh,

Williams 626 S.W.2d 1982). Additionally,

Case Details

Case Name: State Ex Rel. Webster v. Lehndorff Geneva, Inc.

Court Name: Supreme Court of Missouri

Date Published: Feb 17, 1988

Citation: 744 S.W.2d 801

Docket Number: 69432

Court Abbreviation: Mo.