Ballinger v. Rhees
| Decision Date | 13 June 2000 |
| Citation | 39 S.W.3d 842 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) James A. Ballinger, Appellant, v. Herbert and Sally Rhees, et al., Defendants, and Clay County, Missouri, Respondent. WD56830 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Clay County, Hon. James E. Welsh
Opinion Summary: James A. Ballinger appeals from the circuit court's denying him permission to file a third amended motion to modify his child support obligation.
DISMISSED.
Division One holds: The circuit court's docket entries denying Ballinger's request to file a third amended motion and finding its ruling final and appealable did not constitute a "judgment" within the meaning of Rule 74.01(a). Furthermore, the circuit court's nunc pro tunc order could not make the docket entries a retroactive judgment. Because the circuit court did not enter a judgment, this court does not have jurisdiction, and the appeal is dismissed.
The circuit court denied James A. Ballinger leave to file a third amended motion to modify his child support obligation. Ballinger appeals the circuit court's denying him permission to file a third amended motion. Because the circuit court did not enter a judgment, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal.
The record on appeal contains a docket entry from November 24, 1998, which reads: On the same day, the following entry reads: On January 12, 1999, the docket contains the following entry: On March 23, 1999, the circuit court issued an "Order Amending Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc," which purported to amend the "judgment" of January 12, 1999, such that "'there is an express determination of no just reason to delay entry of judgment' with respect to the [c]ourt's ruling of November 24, 1998."
The circuit court appropriately called the November 24, 1998, dismissal and denial of permission to amend a "ruling"--it certainly did not constitute a judgment. Unless a judge signs the docket entry or separate document and labels it "judgment" or "decree," the circuit court's action has no effect. Rule 74.01(a). It is clear that the circuit court intended for its decision to be appealable; however, the supreme court held in City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Mo. banc 1997), that the requirement that the circuit court denominate its ruling as a "judgment" was not a mere formality. We have previously discussed the significance of this requirement. See In the Interest of Prough, 8 S.W.3d 186 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999); Rhodus v. McKinley, 972 S.W.2d 557, 559 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998); Jenkins & Assocs., Inc. v. Quick Elec., Inc., 971 S.W.2d 867, 869 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998).
The circuit court's nunc pro tunc order is likewise ineffective because a nunc pro tunc order can correct only clerical errors in judgments. Rule 74.06(a); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhodus v. McKinley
...1997). But McKinley's contention that the trial court's entries were valid "nunc pro tunc" orders is incorrect. See Ballinger v. Rhees, 39 S.W.3d 842, 843 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) (holding that a "docket entry or separate document" is not a judgment unless a judge signs it and labels it a "judgm......
-
Brooks v. Brooks
...have also found the use of a nunc pro tunc order to be inappropriate to change an order into a judgment. See, e.g., Ballinger v. Rhees, 39 S.W.3d 842, 843 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000). This situation is especially true where there is no clerical error involved, but rather an error in the exercise of......
-
Dieckhoff v. State, WD 63163.
...a docket entry may constitute a judgment under the rule, it still must contain the signature of the judge. See Ballinger v. Rhees, 39 S.W.3d 842, 843 (Mo.App.2000). Alternatively, initials added to a handwritten docket entry by the trial judge have been deemed sufficient to satisfy the sign......