Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Walters

194 S.W.3d 830, 2006 Mo. LEXIS 78, 2006 WL 1883172
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedJune 30, 2006
DocketNo. SC 87199
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 194 S.W.3d 830 (Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Walters) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. v. Walters, 194 S.W.3d 830, 2006 Mo. LEXIS 78, 2006 WL 1883172 (Mo. 2006).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Trevor and Trenton Best, John and Tammy Best’s children, were passengers in a boat that collided with another boat piloted by William Logston. Trevor died and Trenton was injured. Logston was insured by Grinnell Mutual, which filed this interpleader action to determine the distribution of the insurance proceeds among the various claimants. Grinnell Mutual deposited the policy limits into the registry of the court. While the suit was pending, interest accumulated.

The parties eventually reached agreement on distribution of the insurance proceeds, and the accumulated interest, to at least 12 parties. The circuit clerk then claimed the accumulated interest pursuant to section 483.810.1 The court awarded the interest to the circuit clerk.

The Bests appeal, contending that section 483.310 is invalid as it deprives them of their property without just compensation contrary to the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution.2

It is only if a party fails timely to request investment of the funds under section 483.310 that the party fails to receive the interest. The action of nonstate parties is not state action, which is necessary to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment. The Bests failed to request investment of the funds. The judgment is affirmed.

Discussion

Section 483.310 provides for the investment of registry funds.3 If timely applica[832]*832tion is made by one of the parties, the statute clearly declares, “The net income so derived shall be added to and become a part of the principal.” Section 183.310.1. The statute is equally clear that the court clerk is entitled to the interest in “the absence of ... an application by one of the parties within sixty days from the payment of such funds into the registry of the court.” Section 183.310.2.

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617, 121 S.Ct. 2448, 150 L.Ed.2d 592. It is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying federal constitutional rights and which guarantees due process. Id.; Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 837, 102 S.Ct. 2764, 73 L.Ed.2d 418 (1982). The Fourteenth Amendment applies to acts of the states, not to acts of private persons or entities, and is only offended by action of the state. Rendell-Baker, 457 U.S. at 837, 838, n. 6, 102 S.Ct. 2764.

State action requires both action taken pursuant to state law and significant state involvement. Specifically, state action requires both: (1) an alleged constitutional deprivation caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the State or by a person for whom the State is responsible and (2) that the party charged with the deprivation must be a person who may fairly be said to be a state actor. Mottl v. Missouri Lawyer Trust Account Foundation, 133 S.W.3d 142, 146 (Mo.App.2004).

Analysis of the second requirement for state action begins with identifying the specific conduct of which the Bests complain. They frame the issue as one where the interest earned on their principal was taken by the court clerk. In fact, a private party, Grinnell Mutual, deposited the principal into the court’s registry. A second private party, the Bests, voluntarily chose to leave the funds in the registry and declined to seek investment of the funds and to claim the interest derived therefrom, despite ample opportunity to do so. It is only because of the Bests’ failure to act that the interest earned on the registry proceeds was not available for distribution to them. That the interest remained with the clerk is not attributable to the state. See Mottl at 147-48.

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

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

Related

Carr v. Ferrell-Duncan Obgyn Clinic
538 S.W.3d 360 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2018)
International Ass'n of Fire Fighters v. Moon
364 S.W.3d 647 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 S.W.3d 830, 2006 Mo. LEXIS 78, 2006 WL 1883172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grinnell-mutual-reinsurance-co-v-walters-mo-2006.