Springfield's nuisance abatement process is being called into question in Greene County Circuit Court. A recently filed judicial review request asks the court to weigh in on the city's administrative process for dealing with code violations.
The legal action was filed Aug. 6 by RCT Realty, LLC which received several notices concerning the property at 1522 N. Grant Ave. allegedly violating city code regarding dangerous, blighted and nuisance buildings. The LLC is owned by Crista Hogan, the executive director of the Springfield Metropolitan Bar Association who is married to Springfield Councilman Abe McGull, according to the Missouri Secretary of State business database. RCT Realty is being represented by Bryan Fisher, an attorney with Neale &
Newman who has represented clients in several lawsuits against the city, including the most recent lawsuit filed by the Cooper Estates Property Owners Association.
The new petition alleges the administrative hearing held by the city's Building Development Services did not comply with state requirements, the property owner was not sufficiently notified, and the city did not have adequate evidence to issue an order against the plaintiff.
City chief spokesperson Cora Scott told the News-Leader the city will refrain from commenting due to pending litigation.
The city sent out its first letter regarding alleged code violations at the property in May 2025, with subsequent ones in February and March 2026. In late April, according to the court documents, the city sent a failure notice and a notice of an administrative hearing. In June, an administrative hearing was held and evidence presented by the city. In early July, the city's hearing officer issued findings of fact and an abatement order, which requires the owner to obtain a wrecking permit and either demolish the property or obtain all necessary work permits to bring the building up to code standards.
According to the findings of fact issued by the city after the hearing, the structure on the property had a damaged roof, the back door was deteriorated, wood siding was not maintained or weather resistant, and the exterior wall of the building had holes.
The petition argues the city lacked authority to hold the administrative hearing because it has not adopted policies or procedures for such a hearing that have been approved by the court as required by state law. The judicial review request also claims the city's notice of the hearing was improper because it did not include details about how the owner could file an answer. It also alleges the evidence used by the city to find violations of the code was gathered without a warrant and therefore was a result of an unlawful search.
Additionally, the petition argues the owner did not fail to comply with the notice sent in March because it only required the plaintiff to "begin reconditioning, repairing or removing" any nuisance conditions, not that all the conditions had to be abated by any given date. In the court document, the plaintiff asserts that any alleged nuisance conditions were beginning to be abated prior to the deadline set out in the March notice and had been fully abated prior to the hearing.
Through this legal action, RTC Realty is asking the court to reverse the city's findings of fact and assess costs against the city.
Marta Mieze covers local government at the News-Leader. Have feedback, tips or story ideas? Contact her at mmieze@news-leader.com.
This article originally appeared on Springfield News-Leader: Springfield's nuisance abatement process challenged in court
