Background
In 2010, the City of St. Louis adopted Ordinance 68698 establishing an $11 monthly solid waste services fee — later raised to $14 — charged to residents through their water bills. The ordinance authorized the fee to fund “regular solid waste collection and disposal services,” with language permitting, but not requiring, separate collection of recyclables. Beginning in 2011, the City launched a residential recycling and yard waste program, but inconsistently provided separate collection; labor shortages and contamination problems periodically forced the City to commingle recyclables and trash and send all materials to landfills. In August 2025, the City terminated the recycling and yard waste program altogether.
Christy Roberts, a City resident, filed a putative class action asserting a claim for money had and received, alleging she paid the solid waste fee under the mistaken belief the City was actually recycling her materials and collecting yard waste separately. She sought reimbursement of all or a portion of fees paid since 2011. Roberts abandoned breach-of-contract and unjust enrichment claims after the City raised section 432.070 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, proceeding only on the money-had-and-received theory. The circuit court denied the City’s motion to dismiss, and the court of appeals declined to issue a writ of prohibition. The Missouri Supreme Court then issued a preliminary writ, which it was asked to make permanent.
The City’s core defense rested on two grounds: general sovereign immunity and section 432.070, which voids municipal contracts that are not in writing, signed, and based on consideration wholly to be performed after execution — and which Missouri courts have long extended to bar quasi-contractual claims designed to circumvent the statute.
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Supreme Court made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent, holding that the City is entitled to sovereign immunity and that section 432.070 bars Roberts’ claim. The Court first rejected Roberts’ contention that sovereign immunity categorically does not apply to money-had-and-received claims. Under Missouri law, sovereign immunity is the default rule for all suits against public entities, and the burden falls on the plaintiff to plead specific facts establishing a recognized exception. Roberts’ second amended petition contained only a conclusory assertion that sovereign immunity was inapplicable — an insufficient legal conclusion the Court disregarded.
The Court further held that Roberts’ claim was the functional equivalent of an implied-in-fact contract claim, precisely the type of obligation section 432.070 was enacted to prevent. Roberts did not allege the City violated any statute by failing to separately collect recyclables; she alleged only that the City’s website representations created an equitable obligation to continue the service or reduce the fee. Because that obligation, if it arose at all, arose from the parties’ conduct and circumstances rather than from a specific legal mandate, section 432.070 rendered it unenforceable. The Court distinguished Karpierz v. Easley and Investors Title Co. v. Hammonds — cases in which section 432.070 did not bar money-had-and-received claims — because those plaintiffs alleged the government took money in direct violation of a specific statute, not a contractual or quasi-contractual duty.
The Court also rejected Roberts’ proprietary-function exception argument. Missouri has long classified municipal garbage collection as a governmental function, and the Court held that the inclusion of recycling and yard waste components, or the City’s ability to profit from selling collected materials, did not alter that classification. The generic nature and legislative purpose of solid waste collection — protecting public health and safety — remained governmental regardless of fee revenue, consistent with the rule that paying for a governmental service does not convert it into a proprietary one.
Key Takeaways
- Sovereign immunity is the default rule in Missouri suits against municipalities; plaintiffs bear the burden of pleading specific facts establishing an applicable exception, and bare legal conclusions will not suffice.
- Section 432.070 bars not only contract claims against municipalities that fail to meet the statute’s writing and execution requirements, but also quasi-contractual theories — including money had and received — where the alleged obligation arises from implied conduct rather than a specific statutory violation.
- A municipality’s “sue and be sued” authority in a city charter does not waive sovereign immunity beyond what the legislature authorizes; only legislative action can expand consent to suit.
- Municipal solid waste collection — including recycling and yard waste components — is a governmental function immune from suit, even when the city charges fees or may profit from collected materials.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly narrows the avenues available to residents seeking fee refunds from Missouri municipalities when a government program underperforms or is discontinued. By confirming that section 432.070’s prohibition on implied-contract liability extends to money-had-and-received claims grounded in equitable conduct rather than statutory violations, the Court closes a potential workaround that plaintiffs had attempted after contract and unjust enrichment theories were foreclosed. Municipalities and their counsel now have clearer authority to invoke both sovereign immunity and section 432.070 at the pleading stage to defeat such suits.
The ruling also reinforces the broad scope of the governmental-function doctrine in Missouri. Attorneys advising municipalities on service-fee structures, program expansions, or program terminations should note that the City’s ability to profit from recycling sales did not tip the analysis toward proprietary status. Conversely, plaintiffs’ counsel pursuing fee-refund theories against local governments will need to identify an express statutory violation — not merely inequitable conduct — to avoid dismissal on sovereign immunity grounds.