Brissette v. Brissette, 33945
| Citation | 471 S.W.2d 691 |
| Decision Date | 27 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 33945,33945 |
| Parties | Wanda Joan BRISSETTE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. George B. BRISSETTE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
W. W. Sleater, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.
Sestric, Sestric, Sweet & McGhee, Anthony J. Sestric, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.
SMITH, Commissioner.
Defendant-appellant appeals from the order of the trial court denying his motion to quash execution and garnishment. We heretofore sustained defendant's contentions concerning the quashing of the garnishment in State ex rel. Associated Transport Corp. v. Godfrey, Mo.App., 464 S.W.2d 776, so that matter is not before us.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on three grounds; i.e., (1) the notice of appeal was not timely filed because the motion for new trial was out of time; (2) no notice of appeal was filed from the judgment awarding attorney's fees, and (3) the appellant's brief is in 'flagrant violation of Rule 83.05, V.A.M.R., requiring a 'concise statement of the facts without argument."
The motion for new trial was stamped as filed by the Central File Room of the Circuit Clerk's office on May 8, 1970. The order sought to be reviewed was entered April 24, 1970. The minutes entered by the courtroom clerk are: The important date is the date of filing not the date on which the clerk enters the action in the minutes. See Supreme Court Rule 78.02 (V.A.M.R.). The motion was filed within fifteen days of the entry of the order and was timely. The notice of appeal was filed within ten days after the motion for new trial was denied by expiration of time. The appeal was timely taken.
As to ground (2), we will discuss that when discussing the defendant's contentions on the merits.
As to ground (3), the motion has much to commend it. Defendant has presented only the evidence favorable to his side of the case, totally ignored the plaintiff's evidence on the key factual issue, and left the court with the impression after reading the brief that there was no evidence contrary to that of defendant. The rules for briefs require that the statement of facts be fair and concise. The statement here is neither. Respondent and this court are entitled to greater candor than this brief presents. But in view of our perhaps too-often invoked desire to decide cases on the merits we, with some reluctance, decline to dismiss the appeal on the ground stated.
Defendant has raised seven points in which it is contended the court erred. They raise three issues: (1) the court erred in awarding attorney's fees to plaintiff; (2) the court erred in excluding testimony of an assistant circuit attorney on the basis that his conversations with plaintiff were privileged; and (3) the court erred in failing to find an agreement between plaintiff and defendant that he need not continue paying alimony.
The question of the propriety of the attorney's fee award is not before us. The judgment of the court was in two paragraphs. The first dealt solely with the motion to quash execution and garnishment, and overruled and denied that motion in all respects. The second paragraph dealt solely with plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and expenses, and granted that motion. Defendant's notice of appeal was as follows: 'Notice is hereby given that George B. Brissette, defendant above-named, hereby appeals to the St. Louis Court of Appeals from the order denying the defendant's Amended Motion to Quash Execution and Garnishment, or to Modify Same entered in this action on the 23rd day of April, 1970.' (Emphasis ours).
No reference is contained in the notice of appeal to the order of the court granting plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and expenses. Supreme Court Rule 82.08 (V.A.M.R.) provides that the notice of appeal '* * * shall designate the judgment or order appealed from * * *.' The only order or judgment referred to in this notice of appeal is the order denying defendant's motion. That is all the appeal covers.
The parties were divorced in 1963 and plaintiff was awarded alimony of $15 per week. The writ of execution was issued to recover $3900 unpaid alimony allegedly due under the divorce judgment. No dispute exists that defendant has not paid $3900 called for by the judgment. Defendant, in his motion to quash the execution, alleges that the parties entered into an oral agreement in 1964 or 1965 that he would not have to pay any more...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allison v. Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
...In re Marriage of E.A.W. 573 S.W.2d 689 (Mo.App.1978); Donnell v. Vigus Quarries, Inc., 489 S.W.2d 223 (Mo.App.1972); Brissette v. Brissette, 471 S.W.2d 691 (Mo.App.1971). However, in none of those cases did the court find a good faith attempt on the appellant's part to appeal from the unsp......
-
Wilson v. Mercantile Bank of Springfield
...771 (Mo.App.1989), and these cases cited in Rice at page 773: Charles v. Ryan, 618 S.W.2d 220 (Mo.App.1981), and Brissette v. Brissette, 471 S.W.2d 691 (Mo.App.1971).In Labor Discount Center, the court condemned the failure in the notice of appeal to mention a summary judgment against Jacob......
-
Tice v. Tice, s. 18169
...928, 931 (Mo.App.1977); 66 Am.Jur.2d Records § 4, p. 344 (1973); 76 C.J.S. Records § 6, p. 116 (1952). Cf. also Brissette v. Brissette, 471 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Mo.App.1971); Mirax Chemical Products Corp. v. Tarantola, 268 S.W.2d 71, 73 If the trial judge rendered the decision on May 13, 1992, ......
-
Rice v. State
...of two specified parties preserved nothing for review regarding summary judgment in favor of another party; and Brissette v. Brissette, 471 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Mo.App.1971), question of propriety of attorney fee award not preserved for review on appeal from denial of motion to quash execution ......