The Circuit Court found that it had jurisdiction over the matter and approved the consent judgment. River Fleets also requested a declaration that the fees and expenses be paid from the State Legal Expense Fund. Appellants filed suggestions in opposition to an award of attorneys' fees and a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. River Fleets then filed a response to the motion to dismiss. After conducting a hearing on the motions, the Circuit Court denied Appellants' motion to dismiss and granted River Fleets' application for attorneys' fees.
Appellants bring three points on appeal.
In their first point, Appellants claim the trial court erred in awarding attorneys' fees to River Fleets under section 536.050 because that statute allows attorneys' fees to be awarded only where a declaratory judgment is obtained relating to the validity of an agency rule or the threatened application thereof. Appellants argue that, because the case never involved a determination related to the validity of any agency rule or the application of such a rule, no award of attorneys' fees was appropriate under that section. River Fleets claims that it was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees under section 536.050.3. Accordingly, River Fleets did attempt to assert a claim challenging the validity of the application of an agency rule to it. However, in its original judgment, the Circuit Court found that River Fleets' claim regarding the constitutionality of applying section 319.132.1 and 10 CSR 20-12.020 to River Fleets was rendered moot because Appellants had admitted that River Fleets should not have been required to pay the fees and had returned that money to River Fleets.