Boulware v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Boulware v. Director of Revenue

105 S.W.3d 542, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1402, 2003 WL 21057182

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 13, 2003

DocketED 81576

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 105 S.W.3d 542 (Boulware v. Director of Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boulware v. Director of Revenue, 105 S.W.3d 542, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1402, 2003 WL 21057182 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., Judge.

Appellant, Director of Revenue (“Director”), appeals from a judgment assessing costs against it. We affirm as modified.

After Director revoked his driver’s license, Robert Boulware (“driver”) filed a *543 petition for de novo review with the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. Initially, the trial court entered a judgment denying the petition. Four days later, pursuant to Rule 75.01, the trial court vacated its initial judgment and entered a new judgment reinstating driver’s driving privileges. The trial court also assessed costs against the Director. The Director appeals, contesting the assessment of costs.

“Absent a statute to the contrary, costs are not recoverable from the state in its own courts.” Reed v. Director of Revenue, 834 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Mo.App. E.D.1992). Section 536.087.1, RSMo 2000 1 permits a prevailing party in a civil action arising from an agency proceeding to recover “reasonable fees and expenses” incurred. However, “drivers license proceedings” are expressly excluded from the provisions of section 536.087. Section 536.085(1). Thus, the trial court erred in taxing costs against the state. Atkins v. Director of Revenue, 6 S.W.3d 428 (Mo.App. E.D.1999).

Pursuant to Rule 84.14, we modify the judgment to delete the costs assessed against the Director and affirm the judgment as modified.

PAUL J. SIMON, P.J. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., concur.

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GARY M. GAERTNER, SR., Judge.

Appellant, Director of Revenue (“Director”), appeals from a judgment assessing costs against it. We affirm as modified.

After Director revoked his driver’s license, Robert Boulware (“driver”) filed a *543 petition for de novo review with the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. Initially, the trial court entered a judgment denying the petition. Four days later, pursuant to Rule 75.01, the trial court vacated its initial judgment and entered a new judgment reinstating driver’s driving privileges. The trial court also assessed costs against the Director. The Director appeals, contesting the assessment of costs.

“Absent a statute to the contrary, costs are not recoverable from the state in its own courts.” Reed v. Director of Revenue, 834 S.W.2d 834, 837 (Mo.App. E.D.1992). Section 536.087.1, RSMo 2000 1 permits a prevailing party in a civil action arising from an agency proceeding to recover “reasonable fees and expenses” incurred. However, “drivers license proceedings” are expressly excluded from the provisions of section 536.087. Section 536.085(1). Thus, the trial court erred in taxing costs against the state. Atkins v. Director of Revenue, 6 S.W.3d 428 (Mo.App. E.D.1999).

Pursuant to Rule 84.14, we modify the judgment to delete the costs assessed against the Director and affirm the judgment as modified.

PAUL J. SIMON, P.J. and KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, J., concur.

1

. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 S.W.3d 542, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1402, 2003 WL 21057182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boulware-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack