Bailey v. Amon, 69787

Decision Date18 February 1997
Docket NumberNo. 69787,69787
Citation941 S.W.2d 657
PartiesVelma G. BAILEY, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Dorian Bell AMON, Respondent/Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Elbert A. Walton, Jr., St. Louis, for petitioner/appellant.

Dorian Amon, St. Louis, for respondent/respondent.

CRANE, Presiding Judge.

Velma G. Bailey(mother) appeals from the trial court's contempt judgment finding her in contempt for her refusal to permit Dorian Amon(father) to exercise his visitation and temporary custody rights regarding the parties' daughter, H.K.A., under the court's orders.Father filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the contempt judgment was not a final appealable order.We dismiss on this ground.

Father was declared the biological father of H.K.A., born September 4, 1989, under the trial court's Consent Order entered on May 20, 1992 and amended on June 23, 1994.Under this order, mother was awarded custody and father was awarded temporary custody and visitation of H.K.A.The order has been the subject of subsequent litigation and modification which we will not recount here.

On father's motion the trial court found mother in civil contempt for depriving father of periods of temporary custody and ordered mother to pay father the sum of $5,000.00 to be set off against any outstanding amounts owing by father under a support order.It specifically ordered:

1.Mother shall be, and hereby is, in contempt for her willful and intentional refusal to permit Father to exercise his rights under the said orders to visitation and temporary custody with the minor child, and, as a result, to compensate Father, at least in part, for the periods of visitation and temporary custody of the minor child lost as a direct result of her behavior, Mother shall pay to Father the sum of $5,000.00, which shall be set off against any outstanding amounts owing by Father to Mother under the said order for support of the minor child.

Father moved to dismiss this appeal on the basis of Houttuin v. Houttuin, 780 S.W.2d 711, 713(Mo.App.1989) in which we held a civil contempt order is not a final judgment until the order is enforced and is therefore not appealable.

An order finding a party in contempt is interlocutory in nature and is not appealable until it has been enforced.21 West, Inc. v. Meadowgreen Trails, Inc., 913 S.W.2d 858, 883(Mo.App.1995).A judgment of contempt ordering the...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
7 cases
  • In re Marriage of Crow and Gilmore
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 13 Mayo 2003
    ...Whitworth, 41 S.W.3d at 629; Beaver, 954 S.W.2d at 721; Carmack, 947 S.W.2d at 847; Clark, 945 S.W.2d at 703; Bailey v. Amon, 941 S.W.2d 657, 658 (Mo.App.1997); Strickland, 941 S.W.2d at 867; Brock, 936 S.W.2d at 888-89; Matter of Estate of Keathley, 934 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Mo.App. 1996); C.L.......
  • In re Nangle
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, Eighth Circuit
    • 4 Enero 2001
    ...may not be appealed until the order has been enforced, such as by incarceration or by executing on the fine.13 See Bailey v. Amon, 941 S.W.2d 657, 658 (Mo.Ct.App. 1997) (finding that until there has been an attempt to execute on a civil contempt order, the order is interlocutory and not app......
  • Frantz v. Frantz
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 15 Marzo 2016
    ...1997) ). For purposes of appeal, a civil contempt order is not final until “enforced.” Id. at 781 ; see also Bailey v. Amo n , 941 S.W.2d 657, 658 (Mo.App.E.D. 1997) (“An order finding a party in contempt is interlocutory in nature and not appealable until it has been enforced”). When enfor......
  • Cohen v. Cohen
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 11 Octubre 2005
    ..."An order finding a party in contempt is interlocutory in nature and is not appealable until it has been enforced." Bailey v. Amon, 941 S.W.2d 657, 658 (Mo.App.1997). "When `enforcement' occurs depends on the remedy." In re Marriage of Crow & Gilmore, 103 S.W.3d 778, 781 (Mo. banc 2003). A ......
  • Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
  • Section 42 Judgment and Commitment
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Remedies Deskbook Chapter 9 Contempt
    • Invalid date
    ...Crenshaw v. Refuse Serv., Inc., 908 S.W.2d 845 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995); In re Wheat, 944 S.W.2d 272 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997); Bailey v. Amon, 941 S.W.2d 657 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997); Strickland v. Strickland, 941 S.W.2d 866 (Mo. App. S.D. 1997); see also In re Marriage of Gardner, 973 S.W.2d 116, 133 ......