Clary v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Clary v. Director of Revenue

870 S.W.2d 471, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 307, 1994 WL 49612

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 22, 1994

DocketNo. WD 47609

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 870 S.W.2d 471 (Clary 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

Clary v. Director of Revenue, 870 S.W.2d 471, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 307, 1994 WL 49612 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Director of Revenue.appeals an order reinstating the' driver’s license of Edward L. Clary after his revocation for refusal to submit to chemical testing under § 577.041, RSMo Supp.1992 (effective 7-1-92, now repealed).

This court reverses the order of reinstatement.

The Director argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Mr. Clary failed to name the Director of Revenue as a party in his petition for hearing. In support, the Director cites Cox v. Director of Revenue, 858 S.W.2d 844 (Mo.App.1993). In Cox, this district determined that the Director of Revenue must be named as a necessary party in a petition for hearing under § 577.041. Id. at 847. Mr. Clary does not dispute his failure to name the Director as a party defendant. He requests reconsideration of the Cox decision.

Cox has been upheld and followed in two recent decisions of this district. Both Riley v. Director of Revenue, 869 S.W.2d 273, 275 (Mo.App.1994), and Webb v. Director of Revenue, 864 S.W.2d 20, 21 (Mo.App.1993), hold that failure to name the Director as a party in a § 577.041 petition deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. These recent decisions dispel any need for reconsideration.

To be a party, a person must be named in the original pleading or be later added by appropriate court order. Kelley v. Missouri Dep’t of Revenue, 827 S.W.2d 767, 768 (Mo.App.1992). Here, Mr. Clary’s petition bore the caption, “IN RE EDWARD L. CLARY.” No order making the Director a party ensued during the proceedings. The directive in the petition to notify the Director was insufficient to make the Director a party. Webb, 864 S.W.2d at 21.

The trial court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate Mr. Clary’s driver’s license because he failed to name the Director as a party. The order reinstating Mr. Clary’s driver’s license is accordingly reversed.

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

PER CURIAM:

The Director of Revenue.appeals an order reinstating the' driver’s license of Edward L. Clary after his revocation for refusal to submit to chemical testing under § 577.041, RSMo Supp.1992 (effective 7-1-92, now repealed).

This court reverses the order of reinstatement.

The Director argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Mr. Clary failed to name the Director of Revenue as a party in his petition for hearing. In support, the Director cites Cox v. Director of Revenue, 858 S.W.2d 844 (Mo.App.1993). In Cox, this district determined that the Director of Revenue must be named as a necessary party in a petition for hearing under § 577.041. Id. at 847. Mr. Clary does not dispute his failure to name the Director as a party defendant. He requests reconsideration of the Cox decision.

Cox has been upheld and followed in two recent decisions of this district. Both Riley v. Director of Revenue, 869 S.W.2d 273, 275 (Mo.App.1994), and Webb v. Director of Revenue, 864 S.W.2d 20, 21 (Mo.App.1993), hold that failure to name the Director as a party in a § 577.041 petition deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. These recent decisions dispel any need for reconsideration.

To be a party, a person must be named in the original pleading or be later added by appropriate court order. Kelley v. Missouri Dep’t of Revenue, 827 S.W.2d 767, 768 (Mo.App.1992). Here, Mr. Clary’s petition bore the caption, “IN RE EDWARD L. CLARY.” No order making the Director a party ensued during the proceedings. The directive in the petition to notify the Director was insufficient to make the Director a party. Webb, 864 S.W.2d at 21.

The trial court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate Mr. Clary’s driver’s license because he failed to name the Director as a party. The order reinstating Mr. Clary’s driver’s license is accordingly reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

870 S.W.2d 471, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 307, 1994 WL 49612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clary-v-director-of-revenue-moctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack