From the Eastern District Court of Appeals, the 3-judge appeals panel ruled: “Because Plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by the five-year statute of limitations, the trial court erred in entering judgement in favor of the plaintiffs. The court also erred in ordered Defendants to pay Plaintiffs’s attorneys’ fees. The trial court’s final judgement is reversed and remanded for entry of judgement consistent with these findings.”

In the court’s ruling, Appellate Judge Mary K. Hoff  cited Jan. 1, 2000, as the date the statute of limitations actually began. That is the date, she noted, and the other judges concurred, that Lairmore and former Northern District Commissioner Max Aubuchon each accepted a second year’s worth of mid-term pay increase. By taking a second year’s worth of pay increases, the commissioners had taken “sustained” action. Those raised had originally been awarded by state legislation but were later ruled unconstitutional.

The court ruled, however, that Lackman and Penning waited too long  to file their lawsuit since the statute of limitations would have ended Jan. 1, 2005. The lawsuit was not filed until February 2007.

Lairmore said the fact that the statute of limitations had run out was their contention all along. The Appeals Court ruling agreed noting “Missouri courts have found that the five-year statute of limitations is appropriately applied in cases where more than one public official is named as a defendant and the cause of action is based upon the public officials’ violation of or failure to follow the law.”

The court ruled that when the pay raises were taken at the start of the second year, that was when the plaintiffs could say the cause of action was maintained and therefore, the 5-year statute of limitations period began. The court also specifically noted “A plaintiffs ignorance of his cause of action with not prevent the statute from running” noting they could have made that discovered as early as Jan. 1, 2000, when the last pay increase was taken not December 2002 when they discovered that fact.

Citing case histories, the appellate judges ruled the statute of limitations had ran out as of Jan. 1, 2005, their filing of the lawsuit in February of 2007 was “well beyond the five-year limit…Plaintiffs claims were barred.”

And the court added, “Therefore, the trial court erred as a matter of law in entering summary judgement against Defendants (Lairmore and Aubuchon) in their individual capacities,”

The court also noted that since the ruling from the circuit should never had proceeded, Eckelkamp erred in ordered Lairmore and Aubuchon to pay legal fees for Lackman and Penning. “Thus as a matter of law, Plaintiffs did not have a viable cause of action which they should be awarded attorney’s fees,” the Appellate Court ruled. “Accordingly, the trial court erred in ordering Defendants to pay Plaintiff’s attorney’s fees. Point granted.”

The court also agreed that  attorneys for the commissioners had “expressly pleaded” that the statute of limitations had run out prior to the suit ever being filed. 

Tuesday’s ruling came at least a week earlier than scheduled for release —at its earliest — following oral arguments in early June.

“It’s a relief,” said Lairmore.

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."