Opinion letter to the Honorable Robert O. Snyder

May 18, 1973 OPINION LETTER NO. 18 Answer by Letter - Alrnstedt Honorable Robert 0 . Snyder State Representative, District 95 204 State Capitol Building Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 Dear Representative Snyder: Fl LED If This letter is in response to your request for an opinion on whether independent or free-lance "court reporters " may law- fully charge litigants fees in excess or the limits established by Section 492.590, RSMo 1969, when the latter section is appli- cable. You mention in your request t hat: "Court reporters in the St. Louis and St. Louis County area as a matter or practice have been establishing their own fee sched- ules for charges to litigants without regard to the fee limits established in Section 492.590, f~ssouri Revised Statutes. "A complaint about charges made in excess of the statutory limits was made to the Bar Association or St . Louis, after which a chairman of one of the Bar Association's committees met with the president of the Court Reporters Association who stated that it was the belief of the members of the asso- ciation that the statutory limits were not applicable to their charges." For your information, Section 492 .590, RSMo 1959 has been substantially adopted by Missouri Supreme Court Rule 57.46. Honorable Robert 0 . Snyder There has been no change in the law, however, since 1951 when R. S . 1939, Section 1970 was amended to read as it presently does under russouri Supreme Court Rule 57.46 with the exception t hat the latter rule incorporates the cost and expense prescriptions of Section 492.590(2), RSMo 1969. Section 492.590(2), RSMo is not in conflict with t he Missouri Supreme Court Rules under the proviso of Rule 41. 04. Supreme Court Rule 57 . 46(b) provides t hat: "The costs and expenses [of taking deposi- tions, together with the fees of recording and copying the same] so taxed shall be cer- tified by the stenographer or shorthand re- porter taking the same and shall be in the amount fixed by statute." Your opinion request seeks this office's construction of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 57 . 46 and such rule's incorporation of sub- section 2 of Section 492.590, RSMo. This office is without assistance from case authority to ascertain and thereby give effect to the legislative intent ex- pressed in Section 492.590, RSMo 1959 and 1969 and Missouri Su- preme Court Rule 57 .46 . However, the legal maxim which provides that where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, that there is no occasion for construction and the statute must be given its effect according to its plain and obvious meaning, affords some guidance to this office. Subsection b of Supreme Court Rule 57.46 is plain in its reading with no ambiguous words or phrases employed. It is our construction of Supreme Court Rule 57.46 that the intent of the legislature is that the cost and expenses incident to t he taking of depositions, together with the fees and copying of the same, if designated to be taxed against a named party to a lawsuit as court costs, are prescribed in their amounts by the statutory limits fixed in subsection 2 of Section 492.590, RSMo. It is the opinion of this office that costs and expenses of taking depositions, together with the fees of recording and copying the same, designated to be taxed as court costs are prescribed according to the amounts fixed by subsection 2 of Section 492.590, RSMo 1969 . Very truly yours, JOHN C. DANFORTH Attorney General - 2 -