 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
McInerney v. Director of Revenue2/29/2000
at he received the form from his attorney. However, he did not testify, nor did he state in his petition, a date of receipt of the form. The record does not reflect any evidence that the petition was filed within thirty days of driver receiving such notice.
Driver bears the burden to prove the petition for review was filed "within thirty days after notice" of revocation. Ezenwa v. Director of Revenue, 791 S.W.2d 854, 857 (Mo. App. 1990). That limit of time is jurisdictional. Id.
Driver's failure to set forth facts to prove the petition was timely filed deprived the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction. Filla, 873 S.W.2d at 327. An action taken by a court which lacks subject matter jurisdiction is null and void. Id. Therefore, the trial court was barred from considering the petition, and its judgment setting aside the revocation of driver's driving privileges is null and void.
Because of the disposition of the jurisdictional issue, we do not need to address director's second point on appeal.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for the driver's petition to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the trial court.
|