 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Mahmud12/7/1999
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cole County, Hon. Thomas Joseph Brown III
Opinion Vote: REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Breckenridge, C.J., P.J., and Lowenstein, J., concur.
Opinion:
The State of Missouri appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Manzoor Mahmud in its action for reimbursement under the Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement Act (MIRA), sections 217.825 through 217.841, RSMo Cum. Supp. 1998. The State contends that the trial court erred in finding that Mr. Mahmud's assets were exempt from reimbursement under section 513.430(10)(f), RSMo 1994, and in ordering it to pay the cost of the proceedings. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded with directions.
Manzoor Mahmud was sentenced to the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections for a term of five-years imprisonment on April 24, 1998, following his conviction for Driving While Intoxicated (Persistent). He was incarcerated at Farmington Correctional Center until his release in October 1998 when he was placed on probation by the sentencing court after successfully completing a 120-day program.
On July 16, 1998, the State filed a petition for incarceration reimbursement pursuant the Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement Act (MIRA), sections 217.825 through 217.841, RSMo Cum. Supp. 1998, seeking $3559.64 of the $4113.26 in Mr. Mahmud's inmate account for the total cost of his care. Four thousand one dollar and eighty cents ($4001.80) in the account represented Mr. Mahmud's beneficiary share of his deceased mother's Individual Retirement Account (IRA) variable annuity. In response to the State's petition, Mr. Mahmud asserted that the funds sought by the State were exempt from attachment and execution pursuant to sections 513.430(10)(e) and (f), RSMo 1994. Thereafter, both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
The trial court granted Mr. Mahmud's motion for summary judgment on March 1, 1999. The court found that $4001.80 of the balance of Mr. Mahmud's prison account was exempt from attachment as IRA proceeds payable to a beneficiary pursuant to section 513.430(10)(f). The court then found that the remaining funds in the account, approximately $112, were "de minimus" and, therefore, not subject to MIRA. Finally, the court assessed the costs of the proceedings against the State. This appeal followed.
Appellate review of the grant of summary judgment is de novo. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). The record is reviewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered, according that party all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the record. Id.
Summary judgment will be upheld on appeal if the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and no genuine issues of material fact exist. Id. at 377. Facts contained in affidavits or otherwise in support of a party's motion are accepted as true unless contradicted by the non-moving party's response to the summary judgment motion. Id. at 376. A defending party may establish a right to judgment as a matter of law by showing any one of the following: (1) facts that negate any one of the elements of the claimant's cause of action, (2) the non-movant, after an adequate period of discovery, has not and will not be able to produce evidence sufficient to allow the trier of fact to find the existence of any one of the claimant's elements, or (3) there is no genuine dispute as to the existence of each of the facts necessary to support the
Page 1 2 3 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|