Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, First Division
LYNN MYERS and CHARLES BOOTH, Movants-Appellants, LIFE360 CHURCH OF THE ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, INC., ROBERT WAYNE BUCHANAN and JENNIFER MARIE BUCHANAN, Plaintiffs-Respondents,
CITY OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI; BRENDA CIRTIN; BOB STEPHENS, Mayor; JEFF SEIFRIED, City Council Member; CINDY RUSHEFSKY, City Council Member; JERRY COMPTON, City Council Member; CRAIG FISHEL, City Council Member; JAN FISK, City Council Member; CRAIG HOSMER, City Council Member; DOUG BURLISON, City Council Member; and MIKE CARROLL, City Council Member; Defendants-Respondents
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY. Honorable Gerald D. McBeth, Senior Judge.
sFor Appellants: Bryan O. Wade, Ginger K. Gooch.
For Life360 Church of the Assemblies of God, Inc., Robert Wayne Buchanan, and Jennifer Marie Buchanan, Respondents: John C. Holstein, Michael D. Textor, John M. Tyner.
For City of Springfield, Missouri, Brenda Cirtin, Bob Stephens, Jeff Seifried, Cindy Rushefsky, Jerry Compton, Craig Fishel, Jan Fisk, Craig Hosmer, Doug Burlison, and Mike Carroll, Respondents: Daniel R. Wichmer, Thomas E. Rykowski.
Before Rahmeyer, P.J., Lynch, J., and Scott, J.
Two citizens of the City of Springfield (" the City" ), Lynn Myers and Robert Booth (" Appellants" ), sought to intervene in a lawsuit against the City brought by the owners of real estate located within the City to enjoin the City from placing a rezoning ordinance on a ballot for the vote of the City's citizens. Appellants claimed a right to intervene as registered voters and signatories to a referendum petition tat attempted to force the ballot vote. The trial court denied them the right to intervene. On appeal, Appellants bring four claims of trial court error: the first two claim error in denying the motions to intervene, the third claims error on the grant of the injunction, and the fourth claims error in finding that the referendum provisions of the City Charter conflict with Chapter 89 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri. Although the initial lawsuit was between the owners of the property and the City, the City joined with the owners of the property as to the propriety of injunctive relief and further contended that the City's charter violated Missouri statutes. Thus, the Respondents in this appeal are the property owners and the City.
Appellants complain in their first point that the elements of Rule 52.12(a)(2) were met and, therefore, the trial court erred in refusing to permit them to intervene. Rule 52.12(a) provides:
(a) Intervention of Right.
Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of this state confers an unconditional right to intervene or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to
the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
Appellants do not contend that there is any statute in this state conferring an unconditional right, making subsection (1) of section (a) inapplicable; rather, they contend that they " proved that disposition of the action would impair their interests in seeing the referendum petition enforced and Ordinance No. 6038 submitted to vote of the citizens of the City of Springfield in accordance with the City Charter and that this interest was not adequately ...