## Facts

- Christian Disposal, Inc. (CDI) provided solid-waste collection in the Village of Eolia under individual arrangements with residents and businesses.
- Missouri statutes addressed (1) a municipality’s entry into trash collection and (2) a private hauler’s duty to provide certain information to a municipality on request.
- One statute required a municipality that decided to begin providing its own collection service to give the existing private collector two years’ written notice, to allow the collector time to make business adjustments.
- A separate statute stated that private collectors “shall make available” specified information to the municipality within 30 days after a written request, including customer names and addresses and applicable rates (and related contract information).
- On March 9, 1993, the Village sent CDI a letter giving two years’ notice that the Village intended to begin municipal collection, and the same letter requested CDI’s customer and rate/contract information under the 30-day disclosure statute.
- CDI did not provide the requested information within 30 days.
- The Village concluded that CDI’s failure to provide the information estopped CDI from claiming the two-year notice protection and notified CDI that its service would end on August 1, 1993.
- CDI filed an action for declaratory relief, alleging the Village violated the two-year notice statute by attempting to shorten the notice period.
- The trial court ruled for the Village, holding CDI was estopped from invoking the two-year notice statute because it failed to provide the requested information on time.
- CDI appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether CDI’s failure to provide customer and rate/contract information within 30 days under the disclosure statute estopped CDI from asserting the separate statutory right to two years’ written notice before the Village could terminate CDI and begin municipal collection.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment.
- The court held CDI was not estopped from asserting the two-year notice statute based on noncompliance with the separate 30-day disclosure requirement.
- The court concluded the Village could not shorten the statutory two-year notice period and could not terminate CDI effective August 1, 1993 on that theory.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s statutory interpretation.

## Legal Principles

- When the legislature creates a specific statutory protection (two years’ notice to an existing private hauler), courts will not treat that protection as lost due to violation of a separate statute unless the legislature clearly states that consequence.
- Related statutes are read together to carry out legislative intent, but courts do not add a forfeiture or penalty by implication when the statutory text does not provide one.
- Equitable estoppel is not used to defeat a legislatively granted right where applying estoppel would effectively rewrite the statute and upset the statutory scheme.
- Mandatory statutory duties (“shall make available” information within 30 days) may be enforceable through appropriate remedies, but they do not automatically authorize a municipality to disregard an independent statutory notice requirement.

## Conclusion

Christian Disposal, Inc. v. Village of Eolia holds that a private trash collector’s failure to timely provide customer and rate/contract information requested under a 30-day disclosure statute does not eliminate the collector’s independent statutory entitlement to two years’ written notice before a municipality may replace the collector with municipal solid-waste collection service.


Christian Disposal, Inc. v. Village of Eolia, 895 S.W.2d 632 (1995)