KANSAS CITY - A panel of appeals court judges has rejected the City of Kansas City's court battle over less than $500.
In an opinion filed Feb. 27, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District was not convinced that the city should be awarded $480.98 as prejudgment interest in a case it brought against Bego Cosic in Platte County.
According to the order, the city was awarded unpaid earnings, taxes and other costs related to its court action against Cosic over delinquent taxes owed for the tax years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. Circuit Judge Dennis C. Eckold did not award prejudgment interest that the city calculated, however.
After a bench trial on May 5, 2017, Eckold entered judgment awarding the city $1,785.46 for the principal amount of taxes owed, attorneys' fees and process server fees.
In response, the city moved for reconsideration, requesting Eckold award penalties and prejudgment interest pursuant to section 68-394(a) of its ordinances, which he denied.
The appeals panel, consisting of Chief Judge Mark D. Pfeiffer and Judges Victor C. Howard and Cynthia L. Martin, sided with Eckold.
"The City cannot establish that section 68-394(a) was admitted into evidence at trial," Martin wrote for the court. "The trial transcript does not include any specific reference to section 68-394(a). Though (city analyst Aaron) Dispenza testified that interest was assessed against Cosic at a rate that is consistent with what the City now claims section 68-394(a) required, Dispenza did not testify that interest was imposed pursuant to section 68-394(a). Dispenza's testimony does not constitute proof of the contents of the ordinance.
"Even were we to assume (which we do not) that section 68-394(a) was introduced into evidence at trial as a part of Exhibit 3, the trial exhibits have not been deposited with this court. As a result, the contents of section 68-394(a) are not a part of the record on appeal."