Collector of Winchester v. Charter Commc'ns

Full title: COLLECTOR OF WINCHESTER, MISSOURI, AND CITY OF WINCHESTER, MISSOURI…

Court: Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Fourth Division

Date published: Dec 13, 2022

No. ED109513 (Mo. Ct. App. Dec. 13, 2022)

Opinion

ED109513

12-13-2022

COLLECTOR OF WINCHESTER, MISSOURI, AND CITY OF WINCHESTER, MISSOURI, Respondents, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., AND CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendants, CHARTER FIBERLINK - MISSOURI, LLC, AND CHARTER ADVANCED SERVICES (MO), LLC, Appellants.

Attorneys for Appellant: Robert P. Berry and David C. Baxter Attorneys for Respondent: John W. Hoffmann, John F. Mulligan, Jr., Garrett R Broshuis, Howard Paperner, and James H. White

James M. Dowd, J.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County 10SL-CC02719 Honorable Michael T. Jamison

Attorneys for Appellant: Robert P. Berry and David C. Baxter

Attorneys for Respondent: John W. Hoffmann, John F. Mulligan, Jr., Garrett R Broshuis, Howard Paperner, and James H. White

Michael E. Gardner, C.J., James M. Dowd, J., and Lisa P. Page, J.

OPINION

James M. Dowd, J.

In this class action, Charter Fiberlink - Missouri, LLC and Charter Advanced Services (MO), LLC, appeal the judgment in favor of the City of Winchester, Missouri (individually and as class representative of 123 other Missouri jurisdictions) on claims for declaratory and equitable relief for Charter Fiberlink's and Charter Advanced's failure to pay business license taxes on their telephone business in those jurisdictions.

AFFIRMED.

DIVISION IV HOLDS: The trial court did not err because:

(1) the Telecom Act of 1996 does not preempt the Class Members' business license tax ordinances;

(2) the Cable Act of 1984 does not preempt the Class Members' business license tax ordinances;

(3) pursuant to the relevant Missouri license tax-enabling statutes and the Class Members' ordinances, Charter Fiberlink was a "telephone company" providing "telephone service;"

(4) St. Louis County's business license tax ordinance survived the 1995 Amendment to Art. VI, section 18(a) of the Missouri Constitution;

(5) the trial court gave extensive individualized treatment to the Class Members' ordinances and its calculation of back taxes owed adheres to the Supreme Court's Aurora decision; 1

(6) Winchester's and the Class's claims for declaratory and equitable relief were properly brought in and adjudicated by the trial court.

Michael E. Gardner, C.J., and Lisa P. Page, J., concur. 2