Opinion ID: 6108978
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Director's Arguments

Text: The director also challenges the commission's decision, arguing the commission was not authorized to review the director's actions and, contrary to the  court of appeals' decision in Cass County , the proper legal remedy for Cass County is a writ rather than an appeal to the commission. 5 The director argues this is not a matter the commission is authorized to review and attempts to frame the argument in terms of the commission lacking subject matter jurisdiction to hear Cass County's appeal. However, the commission is an adjunct executive agency, not a court vested with judicial power. State Tax Comm'n v. Admin. Hearing Comm'n , 641 S.W.2d 69 , 75-76 (Mo. banc 1982) ; see also Mo. Const. article V, § 1. [A]n administrative body or even a quasi-judicial body is not and cannot be a court in a Constitutional sense. Id. at 75 (internal quotations omitted). The commission is not constitutionally vested with subject matter jurisdiction, as the courts of this state are; rather, it is merely conferred statutory authority to take certain actions. This authority statutorily granted to the commission should not be equated to the subject matter jurisdiction constitutionally granted to courts. Cf. J.C.W. ex rel. Webb v. Wyciskalla , 275 S.W.3d 249 , 254 (Mo. banc 2009) ; see also McCracken v. Wal-Mart Stores E. , 298 S.W.3d 473 , 478 (Mo. banc 2009) (noting sloppy references to subject matter jurisdiction lying with an administrative body rather than a court). The director's attack on the commission's decision is not jurisdictional in nature but is instead an argument that its decision was not authorized by law. See § 621.193. A party seeking to review a decision by the commission may certainly argue the decision was not authorized by law. See id. But the director did not file a petition or cross-petition for review of the commission's decision. Therefore, the director is merely a respondent in the matter before this Court. While a respondent is entitled to advance any argument in support of the decision being reviewed, Rouner v. Wise , 446 S.W.3d 242 , 249 n.5 (Mo. banc 2014), that entitlement does not extend to separate arguments challenging the decision. The general rule of appellate procedure is that, in the absence of a cross-appeal, the reviewing court is concerned only with the complaint of the party appealing and that the opposing party who filed no appeal will not be heard to complain of any portion of the trial court's judgment adverse to him. Goldberg v. State Tax Comm'n , 618 S.W.2d 635 , 642 (Mo. 1981) ; see also Kelly v. Hanson , 959 S.W.2d 107 , 112 (Mo. banc 1997) ; State ex rel. Ginger v. Palmer , 198 S.W.2d 10 , 11 (Mo. banc 1946) ; State ex rel. Caruthers v. Little River Drainage Dist. , 271 Mo. 429 , 196 S.W. 1115 , 1118 (Mo. banc 1917). This general rule applies equally to cases before this Court on a petition for review. Goldberg , 618 S.W.2d at 643 . If the director wished to challenge the commission's decision to the extent it was unfavorable, it was incumbent upon the director to file a petition or cross-petition for review. See id. As a respondent, the director's arguments challenging the commission's decision are not properly before this Court and will not be considered. See id.