 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hemeyer v. KRCG-TV3/9/1999
e investigative report, by exhaustion of or expiration of all rights of appeal of such persons." Section 610.100.1(3). We reject the Attorney General's contention based on our Conclusion that the videotape here in question is not a public record. However, as noted previously, this does not foreclose the possibility that a videotape made by the jail's monitoring system, depending on what it depicted and whether a need for retention existed, could not qualify as a public record and an investigative report.
In its fourth and final point, KRCG argues the trial court erred in failing to enter an award in its favor for attorney's fees. In both its Answer to the Petition, and its Counter-Claim, KRCG prayed for "an order assessing expenses, including attorneys fees, and costs . . . pursuant to Chapter 610." Section 610.027.5 provides:A public governmental body which is in doubt about the legality of closing a particular meeting, record or vote may bring suit at the expense of that public governmental body in the circuit court of the county of the public governmental body's principal place of business to ascertain the propriety of any such action . . . .
The trial court made no mention of attorney's fees in its findings of fact and Conclusions of law.
KRCG failed to present any evidence whatsoever on the issue at trial, and likewise made no argument in support thereof at the Conclusion of the case. Likewise, it presented no argument on the issue in its Suggestions filed in the trial court, although it did reiterate the above quoted language in the last paragraph thereof. Under these circumstances, where there is not a single mention of the words "attorney's fees" in the entire transcript, and the proponent of the award presented no evidence or argument in support thereof, the trial court can hardly be faulted for failing to enter such an award.
Nevertheless, State ex rel. Missouri Local Gov't Retirement Sys. v. Bill, 935 S.W.2d 659 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) and City of Springfield v. Events Pub. Co., 951 S.W.2d 366 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997) both hold that the mandate section 610.127.5, that a declaratory judgment action be at the expense of the public governmental body, includes the requesting party's attorneys fees. Moreover, the pleadings did put the issue before the court. Accordingly, we conclude that the court erred in failing to make findings and enter an award of attorney's fees to KRCG.
In this regard, we note that KRCG has filed a motion in this court for an award of attorney's fees and costs at the trial level, as well as for fees and costs on appeal, in the total amount of $8,627.62. The motion was taken with the case and is now denied. The trial court may address all issues relating to attorney's fees and costs on remand. Irwin v. Irwin, 678 S.W.2d 861, 862 (Mo. App. W.D. 1984). The trial court is, of course, an expert on the issue of attorneys fees and may independently determine and award such fees as its deems appropriate, taking into consideration all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the quality of the legal services rendered and the result achieved. Ritter v. Ritter, 920 S.W.2d 151, 156 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996); Heilbron v. ARC Energy Corp., 757 S.W.2d 294, 296-97 (Mo. App. W.D. 1988).
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
All concur.
Separate Opinion: None
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|