Case Name: Bradley FERGUSON, Appellant, v. Edward HILLHOUSE, et al., Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2009-10-06
Citations: 302 S.W.3d 99
Docket Number: No. ED 92467
Parties: Bradley FERGUSON, Appellant, v. Edward HILLHOUSE, et al., Respondent.
Judges: KENNETH M. ROMINES, C.J., dissents in separate opinion.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 302
Pages: 99–103

Head Matter:
Bradley FERGUSON, Appellant, v. Edward HILLHOUSE, et al., Respondent.
No. ED 92467.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
Oct. 6, 2009.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 17, 2009.
Application for Transfer Denied March 2, 2010.
Andrew Kasnetz, Elizabeth A. Murphy, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Mark Vincent, Union, MO, for Respondent.

Opinion:
ROY L. RICHTER, Judge.
Bradley Ferguson ("Ferguson") appeals the judgments of the Circuit Court of Franklin County first denying his petition for a writ of mandamus and subsequently denying his petition for judicial review. We dismiss his appeal as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
Ferguson, a registered Franklin County voter, filed his Petition for Incorporation of Village of Stonewater ("Petition for Incorporation") pursuant to section 72.080 RSMo Cum.Supp.2007 with the Franklin County Commission ("Commission") on December 26, 2007. In his Petition for Incorporation, Ferguson prayed "that the question be submitted at the next general election" — which would have been in November of 2008. At the same time that Ferguson's Petition for Incorporation was pending before the Commission, a bill was pending before the Missouri General Assembly which, if passed, would repeal those portions of section 72.080 (2007) that provided for incorporating a village.
At the Commission meeting of May 27, 2008, the Commission voted 2-1 against placing Ferguson's proposed incorporation of the village of Stonewater on the August 5, 2008 ballot.
On June 6, 2008, Ferguson filed his Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Judicial Review in the trial court. In Count I, the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Ferguson alleged that his Petition for Incorporation complied with all the requirements of section 72.080 (2007) and that the Commissioners who voted against placing the issue on the ballot improperly considered the fact that the statute would be amended effective August 28, 2008. Ferguson claimed that the Commission acted arbitrarily and in excess of its authority when it voted not to place the incorporation issue on the August 5, 2008 ballot. In Count II, his request for Judicial Review, Ferguson asked that the trial court direct the Commission to place the incorporation issue on the August 5 ballot.
On June 19, 2008, one month after the Commission voted not to place Ferguson's Petition on the ballot, the Governor of Missouri signed into law the bill which repealed those provisions of section 72.080 (2007) that allowed for incorporation of a village.
Approximately one month later, on July 14, 2008, the trial court issued a preliminary writ of mandamus and ordered the Commissioners to file responsive pleadings. The Commissioners responded. inter alia, that they have a duty to determine the legality of a proposed incorporation before declaring an election. The Commissioners further stated that the bill pending before the Missouri General Assembly, which proposed to remove the provisions for incorporating a village, caused them to engage in additional scrutiny of Ferguson's Petition.
On July 29, 2008, the trial court issued its order denying the writ of mandamus and continuing Ferguson's Petition for Judicial Review. The trial court stated it was denying the writ because the Commission's function in analyzing a petition pursuant to section 72.080 was discretionary rather than ministerial, and that such action could not be compelled absent manifest injustice. We note that none of the versions of Section 72.080 (2006, 2007 or 2008) give the Petitioner the authority to decide at which election the Petition should appear on the ballot; that decision is vested in the governing body.
On October 10, 2008, the trial court entered judgment denying Ferguson's Petition for Judicial Review. Ferguson appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
Ferguson raises four points on appeal wherein he challenges the trial court's actions both in denying the writ of mandamus and in denying judicial review. Because a judgment rendered by this Court would not have any practical effect on the controversy at issue, we dismiss Ferguson's appeal as moot.
"A threshold question in any appellate review of a controversy is the mootness of the controversy." In re Estate of Washington, 277 S.W.3d 777, 780 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (citing Reynolds v. City of Valley Park, 254 S.W.3d 264, 266 (Mo.App. E.D.2008)). We will not decide a case that is moot, and may dismiss a case for mootness sua sponte. Id.
An appeal may be rendered moot if an event occurs that makes a court's decision unnecessary or that makes granting effectual relief by the court impossible. In re Prye, 169 S.W.3d 116, 120 (Mo.App. E.D.2005). "In terms of justiciability, a case is moot if a judgment rendered has no practical effect upon an existent controversy." Armstrong v. Elmore, 990 S.W.2d 62, 64 (Mo.App. W.D.1999) (quoting State ex rel. Chastain v. City of Kansas City, 968 S.W.2d 232, 237 (Mo.App. W.D.1998)). When a case is rendered moot, generally it should be dismissed. Brock v. Brock, 142 S.W.3d 204, 206 (Mo.App. E.D.2004).
The controversy in this case is moot. Ferguson asks this Court: (1) to find that the Commission was obligated to place the proposed incorporation on the August 5, 2008 ballot; and/or (2) to direct the trial court to issue its writ of mandamus and order the Commission to place the incorporation issue on the next election ballot. In the time since the trial court denied Ferguson's writ, the August 5, 2008 election date has passed. Furthermore, the current version of section 72.080 no longer provides for the incorporation of a village. See Section 72.080 RSMo Cum. Supp.2008. Therefore, a decision by this Court granting Ferguson the relief he seeks would have no practical effect on the existent controversy. This Court will not decide non-existent issues. See Armstrong, 990 S.W.2d at 64 (holding that a decision as to whether the County Clerk was required to place an issue on the election ballot was moot where the election had already passed).
III. CONCLUSION
Ferguson's appeal is dismissed for mootness.
KENNETH M. ROMINES, C.J., dissents in separate opinion.
GLENN A. NORTON, J., concurs.
. The revised version of section 72.080 became effective on August 28, 2008. See Section 72.080 RSMo Cum.Supp.2008.