Burt v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Burt v. Director of Revenue

208 S.W.3d 319, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1856, 2006 WL 3590306

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 12, 2006

DocketED 87242

StatusPublished

This text of 208 S.W.3d 319 (Burt 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

Burt v. Director of Revenue, 208 S.W.3d 319, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1856, 2006 WL 3590306 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

GLENN A. NORTON, Presiding Judge.

The Director of Revenue appeals the judgment reinstating James Burt’s driving privileges. We vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction.

The parties agree, and the record reflects, that the Director issued notice of the revocation of Burt’s driving privileges on February 16, 2005. Burt had 30 days from that date in which to file an appeal to the circuit court. Section 302.311 RSMo 2000; see also McInerney v. Director of Revenue, 12 S.W.3d 403, 405 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (time limitation triggered by sending of notice). Burt’s petition for review was filed on June 24, 2005, over four months after the notice issued. It was untimely, and therefore the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter its judgment. Mclnemey, 12 S.W.3d at 405. An action taken by a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction is null and void. Id.

The judgment of the circuit court is vacated for lack of jurisdiction, and the case is remanded to the circuit court with directions to dismiss the petition for review.

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY and KENNETH M. ROMINES, JJ., concur.

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

OPINION

GLENN A. NORTON, Presiding Judge.

The Director of Revenue appeals the judgment reinstating James Burt’s driving privileges. We vacate the judgment for lack of jurisdiction.

The parties agree, and the record reflects, that the Director issued notice of the revocation of Burt’s driving privileges on February 16, 2005. Burt had 30 days from that date in which to file an appeal to the circuit court. Section 302.311 RSMo 2000; see also McInerney v. Director of Revenue, 12 S.W.3d 403, 405 (Mo.App. E.D.2000) (time limitation triggered by sending of notice). Burt’s petition for review was filed on June 24, 2005, over four months after the notice issued. It was untimely, and therefore the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter its judgment. Mclnemey, 12 S.W.3d at 405. An action taken by a court that lacks subject matter jurisdiction is null and void. Id.

The judgment of the circuit court is vacated for lack of jurisdiction, and the case is remanded to the circuit court with directions to dismiss the petition for review.

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY and KENNETH M. ROMINES, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 S.W.3d 319, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 1856, 2006 WL 3590306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burt-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack