Opinion ID: 2287114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Commission Was Entitled to Summary Judgment

Text: The commission's affirmative defenses included that Purcell was not entitled to summary judgment because he acted with unclean hands in this case. A litigant with unclean hands generally is not entitled to equitable relief such as an injunction or declaratory judgment. City of St. Joseph v. Lake Contrary Sewer Dist., 251 S.W.3d 362, 369 (Mo.App.2008). This rule reflects that the law strives to prevent opportunistic behavior. See id. A party who participates in inequitable activity regarding the very issue for which it seeks relief will be barred by its own misconduct from receiving relief. Id. (internal quotation omitted). The record in Purcell's case supports the commission's allegations that Purcell is not entitled to declaratory relief because he acted with unclean hands in this matter. The commission rarely met in closed session, having met in closed session only two or three times during Purcell's more than three years as a commissioner. But before the commission's April 17, 2008, meeting, Purcell made plans to record closed session discussions at that meeting. Purcell himself moved for the commission to enter into the April 17, 2008, closed session to discuss the county auditor issue and the McBryde easement issue. Yet these are the precise topics that Purcell now claims were discussed in closed session in violation of the Sunshine Law. Purcell recorded the closed session with a recording device he placed in his jacket, and at no point during the closed session discussions did he object to being in closed session. Purcell does not dispute the trial court's finding that he fully and completely led or participated in all the actions that he now alleges were in violation of Chapter 610. Considering Purcell's actions and statements at the commission's April 17, 2008, meeting, the doctrine of unclean hands was invoked appropriately by the commission in arguing that Purcell was not entitled to the declaratory and injunctive relief that he sought. Purcell instigated the closed session and led discussions that he now complains were unlawful. This is not to say that a member of a public governmental body cannot bring an action under the Sunshine Law. A county commissioner who protested the closing of a meeting at the time it was closed would be a very different kind of plaintiff than Purcell. A county commissioner who declined to participate in an unlawful closed session also would be a different kind of plaintiff than Purcell. But under the circumstances here, Purcell, as a matter of law, was not entitled to relief; the trial court did not err in sustaining the commission's motion for summary judgment. [4]