Dynasty is the owner and landlord of residential rental properties in a subdivision in Franklin County, Missouri. The District is a public water supply district that supplies water and sewer service to the premises of the subdivision. While the District will open new accounts for water or sewer service in the name of Dynasty or in the name of the tenant, Dynasty requires its tenants to procure service with the District in their own names.
When a tenant is delinquent in payment for services by thirty days, the District is required to notify Dynasty of the delinquency. The District only discontinues services when accounts are delinquent by forty-five days. When a tenant’s service is discontinued for nonpayment, the District requires the property owner, Dynasty, to pay up to ninety days of charges and late penalties assessed to the account.
Dynasty requested that the District terminate service to the listed tenants whose accounts are delinquent by thirty days. The District refused these requests because Dynasty is not the named customer on the account.
Dynasty filed a petition for inverse condemnation against the District for its refusal to terminate service as Dynasty requested, thereby increasing Dynasty’s liability for delinquent service charges and late penalties. The trial court granted the District’s summary judgment motion and Dynasty appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed. The court rejected Dynasty’s argument that because the statute deems it to be a furnishee, it should have the same right to terminate service that the occupant has. While section 250.140.1 does deem services to be furnished to both owner and occupant, the statute does not state, and it does not follow, that both parties share equal rights over the terms of the service.
Dynasty did not assert that it was a “customer” within the meaning of the rules and regulations, as it does not use the incoming water services itself. If Dynasty established the accounts in its own name, then billed the tenants for the water they used, it would be a customer, and would have the right to terminate services at its discretion. Dynasty instead chose that its tenants establish accounts in their own names. The tenants therefore have a contractual relationship with the District, and they have the right to terminate services pursuant to the terms of the contract. Dynasty had elected not to be a party to the contract, and therefore it did not have the same rights as the parties have to end services.
“Dynasty has not met its burden to show that the District’s rules and regulations bear no reasonable relationship to the legislative objective or that they are unreasonable and plainly inconsistent with section 250.140.1. Because the District’s rules and regulations on the termination of service are valid, and because section 250.140.1 does not grant it any additional rights or powers, Dynasty does not have the right to terminate service at its request. Therefore, Dynasty does not have a property right to be infringed, and it has not suffered a taking.”