Section 15.23 Errors and Procedural Defects

• Library: Local Government Deskbook (2017 Ed.)

M. (§15.23) Errors and Procedural Defects

In City of Eureka v. Hall, 687 S.W.2d 917 (Mo. App. E.D. 1985), the court held that the City was not required to follow the procedural steps for annexation when it had already proceeded with all legislative steps, including elections, required under the prior statute before the effective date of the new statute in light of the amendments containing an exemption to relieve certain annexation efforts from compliance. The annexation was sustained. Butsee also City of Branson v. Biedenstein, 618 S.W.2d 665 (Mo. banc 1981).

If the city uses one resolution for two tracts of land and the court finds the annexation of one tract to be unreasonable, the entire annexation proposal will fail. City of Bourbon v. Miller, 420 S.W.2d 296 (Mo. banc 1967). In this instance, the trial court had found that the greatest part of the proposed annexation was unreasonable and arbitrary, and the Supreme Court held that the entire proposal was unreasonable and unnecessary.

In City of Creve Coeur v. Brame, 446 S.W.2d 173 (Mo. App. E.D. 1969), the City of Creve Coeur fell into two statutory categories ostensibly requiring two separate elections. The trial court and court of appeals ruled that the City did not need to hold two separate elections, and it approved the annexation.

An improper description of the property to be annexed is normally fatal under statutory requirements that the metes and bounds description be set out. But see Waller v. City of Macon, 277 S.W.2d 886 (Mo. App. W.D. 1955), in which an error in the legal description was not fatal because the parties had notice and were fully aware of the exact...