Opinion ID: 1427904
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Battlefield Decision

Text: The most compelling reason to apply section 321.320 is the Court's previous decision in Battlefield Fire Prot. Dist. v. City of Springfield, 941 S.W.2d 491 (Mo. banc 1997). In Battlefield , a fire protection district brought an action challenging the annexation by the city of Springfield of property included in the district. Id. at 491. The district argued that it had standing to contest the annexation based on the loss of tax revenues. Id. at 492. The Court stated that the loss in revenue would have been sufficient for standing were in not for section 321.320, ... which provides that whenever a city having a population of forty thousand or more inhabitants annexes an area previously lying within a fire protection district, the fire protection district no longer has the obligation to provide service to that area. Id. As a result, the district was not adversely affected by the annexation because the decline in the need to provide fire services offset the loss in tax revenues. [10] Id. South Metro argues that Battlefield can be distinguished because the Court addressed section 321.320 in the context of standing and did not directly address the interplay between section 321.320 and section 72.418. Although South Metro is correct, the application of section 321.320 was necessary to support the holding to deny the fire protection district standing. The Court's interpretation of section 321.320 in Battlefield is not contrary to any existing statute or any case law, and the legislature has not amended or repealed this section as a result of this interpretation. [11] The discussion noted above provides fair reason to apply sections 72.400 to 72.430 to boundary commission counties and to apply chapter 321 and the sections therein to counties with no boundary commission. For South Metro to prevail, it would be necessary to distinguish or overrule Battlefield . There is not a sufficient reason to do so.