Opinion ID: 2547091
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Appellants lack individual and taxpayer standing and to challenge County's failure to comply with section 260.247.

Text: In their second point, the appellants argue that the trial court erred in dismissing their petition because the County did not give the previous trash haulers two years notice by certified mail before replacing them, thus violating section 260.247. At issue is whether the appellants have standing to bring this claim. [3] If a party is without standing to bring a particular claim, a court shall dismiss the claim because the court lacks the authority to decide the merits of the claim. Farmer v. Kinder, 89 S.W.3d 447, 451 (Mo. banc 2002). This state requires that plaintiffs have a legally protectable interest in the litigation so as to be directly and adversely affected by its outcome. Missouri State Medical Ass'n v. State, 256 S.W.3d 85, 87 (Mo. banc 2008). A legally protectable interest exists if the plaintiff is directly and adversely affection by the action in question or if the plaintiff's interest is conferred by statute. Ste. Genevieve School District R-II v. Board of Alderman of City of Ste. Genevieve, 66 S.W.3d 6, 10 (Mo. banc 2002). Missouri requires that a complainant be within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional guarantee in question to bring an action thereunder. A plaintiff must show a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy and allege some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action. Harrison v. Monroe County, 716 S.W.2d 263, 266 (Mo. banc 1986); see also Association of Data Processing Serv. Org., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 153, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970). The purpose of section 260.247 is to provide an entity engaged in waste collecting sufficient notice to make necessary business adjustments prior to having its services terminated in a given area. American Eagle Waste Indust., 272 S.W.3d at 342-43. The appellants are not engaged in the business of trash collection. The appellants fail to show how the lack of notice adversely affected them; they do not have a legally cognizable interest in their section 260.247 claim. The appellants are not within the zone of interests protected by section 260.247, and thus do not have standing. The appellants also claim to have taxpayer standing to challenge the possible violation of section 260.247. Eastern Mo. Laborers Dist. Council v. St. Louis County sets forth Missouri's test for taxpayer standing: Absent fraud or other compelling circumstances, to have standing a taxpayer must be able to demonstrate a direct expenditure of funds generated through taxation, or an increased levy of taxes, or a pecuniary loss attributable to the challenged transaction ... 781 S.W.2d 43, 47 (Mo. banc 1989). A party challenging an illegal government action merely must show that their taxes went or will go to public funds that have been or will be expended due to the challenged action. Duvall v. Coordinating Bd. For Higher Educ., 873 S.W.2d 856, 858 (Mo.App.1994). Appellants argue that they have taxpayer standing because taxes will be spent on St. Louis County's trash district ordinances and program. Section 260.247 is not related to the establishment of the trash collection program, it merely mandates that existing haulers receive notice before they are replaced. The appellants, however, have not pleaded any facts that taxpayer funds were expended due to the lack of notice to the trash haulers. The appellants fail to connect the challenged actionfailure to give notice to the existing haulersand a pecuniary loss or public expenditure incurred by the taxpayers. Under Eastern Mo. Laborers, the appellants do not have taxpayer standing to challenge section 260.247.