Opinion ID: 1382481
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the missouri constitution prohibits retroactive application of section 287.815

Text: Article III, section 39(3) of the Missouri Constitution provides that [t]he general assembly shall not have power . . . (3)[t]o grant . . . any extra compensation, fee or allowance to an officer, agent, servant, or contractor after service has been rendered. Mo. CONST. art. III, § 39(3). Article III, section 38(a) provides that [t]he general assembly shall have no power to grant public money or property . . . to any private person. . . . Mo. CONST. art. III, § 38(a). There are two principal cases that apply the foregoing constitutional provisions in circumstances similar to this case. The first case, State ex rel. Cleaveland v. Bond, 518 S.W.2d 649 (Mo.1975), involved a retired judge who sought retirement benefits under a statute enacted after his retirement. As of the date of his retirement, the judge was not entitled to benefits. Id. at 651. Subsequently, a new statute was enacted that created a retirement plan for judges and purported to make the benefits available to previously retired judges. Id. The Court rejected the retired judge's claim for benefits because [t]he only possible justification for including him would be on some theory of reward for past services rendered, which would constitute the grant of extra compensation to a private individual for a service that had been rendered, or in other words a gratuity. Id. at 654. The provisions of the statute that retroactively granted benefits to previously retired judges were held unconstitutional under article III, sections 38(a) and 39(3). Id. at 654. The second case, Police Retirement System of Kansas City v. Kansas City, 529 S.W.2d 388 (Mo.1975), involved a suit by retired police officers seeking cost-of-living adjustments based upon a statute passed subsequent to their retirement. The Court held that the statute was unconstitutional because it constituted a grant of extra or add on compensation in violation of article III, section 39(3). Id. at 393. The rationale of the Cleaveland and Police Retirement System cases demonstrates that a retroactive award of three years of extra pension benefits to Mr. Sihnhold would be unconstitutional. When Mr. Sihnhold's employment terminated in 1989, section 287.815 provided that he would become eligible for benefits at the age of sixty-five. If the 1999 amendment is applied and Mr. Sihnhold is deemed eligible for benefits at age sixty-two, he would obtain three extra years of compensation to which he was not entitled at the time he rendered his services. Consequently, the circuit court was correct to hold that application of the amended version of section 287.815 to Mr. Sihnhold would constitute a grant of extra compensation in violation of article III, sections 38(a) and 39(3).