Opinion ID: 1353839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standing and lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Text: The treasurer says that the receivers had no authority to continue to hold the funds or to apply the interest pursuant to the court's orders under Rule 68.02 and section 483.310(2), and, instead, should have paid the money over to her and should have issued reports about the funds to her. Before we can address the merits of these claims, however, we must determine whether the treasurer has standing to make them. Standing is a jurisdictional matter antecedent to the right to relief. State ex rel. Williams v. Marsh, 626 S.W.2d 223, 227, n. 6 (Mo. banc 1982). It asks whether the persons seeking relief have a right to do so. State ex rel. Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit v. Jones, 823 S.W.2d 471, 475 (Mo. banc 1992). Where, as here, a question is raised about a party's standing, courts have a duty to determine the question of their jurisdiction before reaching substantive issues, for if a party lacks standing, the court must dismiss the case because it does not have jurisdiction of the substantive issues presented. State ex rel. Ryan v. Carnahan, 960 S.W.2d 549, 550 (Mo.App.1998); Rule 55.27(g)(3). Lack of standing cannot be waived. Foreclosure for Delinquent Land Taxes by Action in REM, 947 S.W.2d 90, 93 (Mo.App.1997). Here, the treasurer maintains that section 447.575 gives her standing to bring suit to enforce delivery of the funds at issue. Prior to 1993, section 447.575 allowed the director of the department of economic development to enforce delivery of certain types of unclaimed property. Sec. 447.575, RSMo 1986. In 1993, the legislature amended section 447.575 and transferred this power to the treasurer. That section, as revised, states: 447.575. Enforcing delivery, court action If any person refuses to deliver property to the state as required under sections 447.500 to 447.595, the treasurer shall bring an action in a court of appropriate jurisdiction to enforce such delivery. Respondents contend that, while section 447.575 clearly purports to give the treasurer standing to sue to enforce delivery of funds subject to UDUPA, article IV, section 15 of the state constitution prohibits her from exercising the collection power that section 447.575 purports to give her. Article IV, section 15 states in relevant part: [n]o duty shall be imposed on the state treasurer by law which is not related to the receipt, investment, custody and disbursement of state funds and funds received from the United States government. Mo. CONST. art. IV, sec. 15. [10] Thus, whether the treasurer has standing to bring suit against respondents depends on whether section 447.575 is a constitutional delegation of authority under article IV, section 15. An act of the legislature carries a strong presumption of constitutionality. Home Builders Ass'n of Greater St. Louis v. State, 75 S.W.3d 267, 269 (Mo. banc 2002). This Court will not invalidate a statute unless it clearly and undoubtedly contravenes the constitution and plainly and palpably affronts fundamental law embodied in the constitution. Smith v. Coffey, 37 S.W.3d 797, 800 (Mo. banc 2001). But, if all or part of a statute does conflict with a constitutional provision or provisions, this Court must hold the conflicting portions invalid. State ex rel. Upchurch v. Blunt, 810 S.W.2d 515, 516 (Mo. banc 1991). As noted, the relevant portion of article IV, section 15 states, [n]o duty shall be imposed on the state treasurer by law which is not related to the receipt, investment, custody and disbursement of state funds and funds received from the United States government. Mo. CONST. art. IV, sec. 15. On its face, the section does not give the treasurer the authority to collect or enforce delivery of any funds, but rather restricts her to receipt, investment, custody and disbursement of certain types of funds. But, the treasurer contends this section must be read broadly for the rules of constitutional construction allow for an even broader reading of the provision than is permitted in the case of statutory construction, due to the more permanent character of the constitution. See Boone County Court v. State, 631 S.W.2d 321, 324 (Mo. banc 1982). Therefore, the treasurer argues, when read broadly, [t]he act of receiving or collecting abandoned property... is surely `related to the receipt, investment, custody and disbursement of state funds.' This Court disagrees. While a court will read a constitutional provision broadly, it cannot ascribe to it a meaning that is contrary to that clearly intended by the drafters. Rather, a court must undertake to ascribe to the words of a constitutional provision the meaning that the people understood them to have when the provision was adopted. Boone County Court, 631 S.W.2d at 324. The meaning conveyed to the voters is presumptively the ordinary and usual meaning given the words of the provision. Id. Applying this rule, this Court finds that article IV, section 15 does not expressly or implicitly grant the treasurer authority to enforce delivery of property but, to the contrary, specifically denies her that power. The treasurer would have us construe section 15 as if it were a broad grant of power to undertake actions not limited to those related to receipt, investment, custody and disbursement of state funds and funds received from the United States government. But, the words used to describe the treasurer's powers do not broaden or expand the treasurer's authority, but rather are words of restriction. The constitution enumerates very specific powers that the treasurer may exercise and, then, specifically provides that no duty not related to those specifically enumerated powers may be exercised by her. The failure to enumerate the power to collect or enforce delivery of funds was not an oversight. In fact, section 15 itself provides that [a]ll revenue collected and moneys received by the state which are state funds or funds received from the United States government shall go promptly into the state treasury ... [i]mmediately upon receipt of state or United States funds the state treasurer shall deposit all moneys in the state treasury in banking institutions selected by him and approved by the governor and state auditor, and he shall hold them for the benefit of the respective funds to which they belong and disburse them as provided by law. Mo. CONST. art. IV sec. 15 (emphasis added). Similarly, article IV section 22 states [t]he department [of revenue] shall collect all taxes and fees payable to the state as provided by law. Mo. CONST. art. IV sec. 22. The contrast is evident. In section 15 the drafters chose not to permit the treasurer to act as a collector of these or other funds, but rather specifically provided that the treasurer is to act as  custodian of all state funds and funds received from the United States government. Mo. CONST. art. IV sec. 15 (emphasis added). The word custodian is defined as one that guards and protects or maintains. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 280 (1976). In other words, a custodian receives and holds funds; it does not collect them. The narrow grant of authority to the treasurer is in keeping with the narrow grant of authority by the 1945 constitution to certain other elected officials. Just as article IV, section 15 sets limits on the power of the treasurer, so article IV, section 13 provides: [n]o duty shall be imposed on [the state auditor] by law which is not related to the supervising and auditing of the receipt and expenditure of public funds. Article IV, section 14 similarly provides no duty shall be imposed on [the secretary of state] by law which is not related to his duties as prescribed in this constitution. There were no similar limitations in the 1875 Constitution, and this Court has previously recognized that it was to correct this situation that these limiting provisions were added to the 1945 constitution, for: the background of the 1945 provision lies in the prior history of a building up of the power and patronage of elected officials by giving to them new functions and duties. One purpose of the new constitution was to limit and define the scope and duties of all executive officials (see § 12, Art. 4,) agencies, and departments, including elected officials. Petition of Board of Public Buildings , 363 S.W.2d 598, 608 (Mo. banc 1962). Indeed, the 1944 debates over the 1945 constitution themselves show that the delegates to the constitutional convention drafted it with an eye towards their concern that power had been too widely distributed among a variety of elected officials under the 1875 constitution and that a focusing of more executive power in the office of the governor and his or her appointees might lead to more effective government. One way the 1945 constitution sought to accomplish this goal was by precluding the expansion of the state treasurer's role beyond that of custodian of state funds and by similarly limiting the power of the state auditor and secretary of state. See DEBATES, MISSOURI CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 1945, vol. 13, 4127-4135; vol. 14, 4171-4173. In addition to imposing specific prohibitions on the office of state treasurer, the 1945 constitution effectively transferred to other officials any powers of collection that the legislature had previously permitted the treasurer to exercise.