A state appeals court ruled Tuesday that Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem correctly dismissed a lawsuit challenging a state requirement for municipal courts to collect a $3 fee for the sheriff's retirement fund.
Missouri law has authorized the fund since 1983. But the statute had not been applied to the municipal courts until an April 17, 2013, opinion from Attorney General Chris Koster's office that "the legislature intended that the surcharge be collected in municipal courts."
The state Supreme Court then issued a revised "Schedule for Collection of Court Costs, Fees, Miscellaneous Charges and Surcharges," requiring municipal courts to collect the $3 surcharge as of Aug. 28, 2013.
Municipal court officials - including Barb Schaeffer, Jefferson City's Municipal Court clerk and administrator - joined the Missouri Municipal League in an Aug. 27 lawsuit challenging the decision to require municipal courts to collect the surcharge.
Beetem dismissed the case on Aug. 29, 2014.
Beetem ruled Schaeffer, the Municipal League and the others who filed the suit didn't have the legal standing to sue in the first place.
"The allegations of injury in fact for these plaintiffs do not rise to the level recognized by Missouri law," Beetem wrote.
He also dismissed the case "with prejudice," meaning the plaintiffs couldn't file it again, because they "failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted after being afforded two chances to file amended pleadings."
In their appeal, Schaeffer and Christine Cates, Blue Springs' assistant city administrator, argued they have standing both as taxpayers and because the application of the law to include municipal courts directly affects them in the performance of their official responsibilities.
The city of Slater also argued the current implementation of the law has a direct, harmful impact, and the Municipal League told the appeals court it has standing on behalf of its municipal members.
An opinion written by Alok Ahuja, the appeals court's chief judge said: "In this case, Cates and Schaeffer have failed to allege facts to show that they have standing, as taxpayers, to challenge a 'direct expenditure of funds generated through taxation.'
"More importantly, the petition fails to allege that compliance with the requirements of (the state law) will require expenditures, directly caused by the allegedly unlawful surcharge, which are separate and apart from the general operating expenses that municipal courts would incur regardless."