Kelley v. Missouri Department of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Kelley v. Missouri Department of Revenue

827 S.W.2d 767, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 621, 1992 WL 70428

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 10, 1992

DocketNo. 17643

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 827 S.W.2d 767 (Kelley v. Missouri Department 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

Kelley v. Missouri Department of Revenue, 827 S.W.2d 767, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 621, 1992 WL 70428 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The “Director of Revenue, State of Missouri” appeals from the judgment purporting to set aside the suspension of driving privileges for 60 days for violation of § 303.025, RSMo 1986, a portion of “The Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Law.” § 303.010, RSMo 1986.

The petition styles the action as against the “Missouri Department of Revenue”. It provides “Serve: Duane Benton, Director of Revenue”. Respondent Steven Kelley contends this constituted naming the Director of Revenue “specifically in the caption”. The body of the petition does not refer to the Director, but only to the “Missouri Department of Revenue”. Steven Kelley also contends that the Director of Revenue was named on the docket sheet as the responding party. Such references did not make him a party. Nor does naming the “Director of Department of Revenue” in the body of an order staying the suspension until the suit was determined make the Director a party.

To be a party to a suit a person must either be named in the original pleading, or be later added by appropriate trial court order. Jines v. Director of Revenue, 788 S.W.2d 801, 802 (Mo.App.1990). See also Cameron Mutual Ins. Co. v. McMinn, 820 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Mo.App.1991). This case is governed by Patton v. Director of Revenue, 789 S.W.2d 882 (Mo.App.1990). Under that case, failure to name the Director of Revenue leaves the trial court with no jurisdiction to consider an order suspending driving privileges.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions that the petition be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

All concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The “Director of Revenue, State of Missouri” appeals from the judgment purporting to set aside the suspension of driving privileges for 60 days for violation of § 303.025, RSMo 1986, a portion of “The Motor Vehicle Safety Responsibility Law.” § 303.010, RSMo 1986.

The petition styles the action as against the “Missouri Department of Revenue”. It provides “Serve: Duane Benton, Director of Revenue”. Respondent Steven Kelley contends this constituted naming the Director of Revenue “specifically in the caption”. The body of the petition does not refer to the Director, but only to the “Missouri Department of Revenue”. Steven Kelley also contends that the Director of Revenue was named on the docket sheet as the responding party. Such references did not make him a party. Nor does naming the “Director of Department of Revenue” in the body of an order staying the suspension until the suit was determined make the Director a party.

To be a party to a suit a person must either be named in the original pleading, or be later added by appropriate trial court order. Jines v. Director of Revenue, 788 S.W.2d 801, 802 (Mo.App.1990). See also Cameron Mutual Ins. Co. v. McMinn, 820 S.W.2d 85, 87 (Mo.App.1991). This case is governed by Patton v. Director of Revenue, 789 S.W.2d 882 (Mo.App.1990). Under that case, failure to name the Director of Revenue leaves the trial court with no jurisdiction to consider an order suspending driving privileges.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions that the petition be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

827 S.W.2d 767, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 621, 1992 WL 70428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelley-v-missouri-department-of-revenue-moctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack