otherwise exist.” Schneidler v. Feeder’s Grain Supply, Inc., 24 S.W.3d 739, 741 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). This court has the obligation to raise a mootness issue sua sponte, despite the parties’ agreement not to contest it. Kinsky, 109 S.W.3d at 195; State ex rel. County of Jackson v. Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 985 S.W.2d 400, 403 (Mo.App. W.D.1999)(rejecting County’s request that we decide the merits in a natural gas rate matter “[d]espite the mootness of this case”). By placing the smoking-ban question on the November 2006 ballot for voter approval, the Election Board itself complied with the Lee’s Summit request it now seeks to declare unlawful. This further supports the conclusion that the issue is moot. See Union Hill Homes Ass’n, Inc. v. RET Dev. Corp., 83 S.W.3d 87, 92 (Mo.App. W.D.2002)(<HOLDING>); Brock v. Brock, 142 S.W.3d 204, 205 (Mo.App.
holding that judgment of civil contempt against homes association was rendered moot and unappealable when association purged itself of contempt by complying with underlying order holding that a civil contempt defendant has a right to a jury trial when the act of contempt was not committed in the presence of the court and when the incarceration is in part punitive holding that a contempt order labeled by the district court as civil was actually a criminal contempt because the order was retroactive seeking to penalize previous violations and was punitive serving no compensatory purpose holding corporation and its president in criminal contempt because previous order of civil contempt had not been purged holding that in addition to statutory contempt powers city courts have inherent contempt power