Seibuhr v. Wagner

Missouri Court of Appeals

Seibuhr v. Wagner

873 S.W.2d 955, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 695, 1994 WL 144971

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 26, 1994

DocketNo. 63569

StatusPublished

This text of 873 S.W.2d 955 (Seibuhr v. Wagner) 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

Seibuhr v. Wagner, 873 S.W.2d 955, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 695, 1994 WL 144971 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

REINHARD, Judge.

Petitioner appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition to reinstate his driving privileges. We reverse and remand.

Petitioner allegedly failed to submit to a chemical test on August 29, 1992. The Director of Revenue (Director) mailed a notice revoking petitioner’s driving privileges on September 18, 1992. Petitioner filed his petition on October 23, 1992, thirty-five days later.

On appeal, the Director argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to set aside the revocation of driving privileges. We agree.

Petitions for review must be filed within thirty days of mailing of notice of revocation. § 536.110, RSMo 1986; Ramey v. Director of Revenue, 865 S.W.2d 442, 443 (Mo.App.E.D.1993). Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by estoppel or consent, and the lack thereof can be raised for the first time on appeal. Ferguson v. Director of Revenue, 783 S.W.2d 132, 133 (Mo.App.1989). When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it can take no action other than to exercise its inherent power to dismiss the petition. Pool v. Director of Revenue, 824 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Mo.App.1992). Thus, any action taken by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is null and void. Ferguson, 783 S.W.2d at 133. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded with directions to dismiss the petition.

CRANDALL, P.J., and CRIST, J., concur.

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

REINHARD, Judge.

Petitioner appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition to reinstate his driving privileges. We reverse and remand.

Petitioner allegedly failed to submit to a chemical test on August 29, 1992. The Director of Revenue (Director) mailed a notice revoking petitioner’s driving privileges on September 18, 1992. Petitioner filed his petition on October 23, 1992, thirty-five days later.

On appeal, the Director argues that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to set aside the revocation of driving privileges. We agree.

Petitions for review must be filed within thirty days of mailing of notice of revocation. § 536.110, RSMo 1986; Ramey v. Director of Revenue, 865 S.W.2d 442, 443 (Mo.App.E.D.1993). Subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by estoppel or consent, and the lack thereof can be raised for the first time on appeal. Ferguson v. Director of Revenue, 783 S.W.2d 132, 133 (Mo.App.1989). When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it can take no action other than to exercise its inherent power to dismiss the petition. Pool v. Director of Revenue, 824 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Mo.App.1992). Thus, any action taken by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is null and void. Ferguson, 783 S.W.2d at 133. The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case remanded with directions to dismiss the petition.

CRANDALL, P.J., and CRIST, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

873 S.W.2d 955, 1994 Mo. App. LEXIS 695, 1994 WL 144971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seibuhr-v-wagner-moctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack