Bryant v. Carter County
| Decision Date | 23 February 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. SD 29230.,SD 29230. |
| Citation | 283 S.W.3d 802 |
| Parties | Paul BRYANT and Gloria R. Reynolds, Carol E. Whitaker, Tracy Scott Reynolds, Ramona L. Kindrick and Debra J. Reynolds, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CARTER COUNTY, Missouri, and Commissioners, Eddie Ballard, Lynn Murdick, and Gene Oakley, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Ivan L. Schraeder, Corey L. Franklin, St. Louis, MO, Ernie J. Richardson, Van Buren, MO, for appellants.
Devin S. Kirby, Derrick S. Kirby, Doniphan, MO, for respondents.
Judgment was entered on March 21, 2008, and Defendants-Appellants timely filed a Motion for a New Trial. Ninety days from the date of the motion was July 10, 2008. A docket entry reflects the following:
"7/10/2008 Order
Court reviews Motion for New Trial and
hereby sustains said motion
Clerk to notify counsel. So Ordered
MLR
Date changed by order of Nunc Pro Tunc
order of Judge Richardson on July 21
2008
21-Jul-2008 Nunc Pro Tunc Order."
The docket entry of July 21, 2008, states:
Defendants-Appellants brought this appeal challenging the March 21, 2008 Judgment "because they were not sure of the effect of the Nunc Pro Tunc order on the status of the corrected docket entry sustaining the Defendants' Motion for a New Trial."
We dismiss the appeal and find the order setting aside the Judgment was timely granted by the trial court on July 10, 2008. A nunc pro tunc order is "intended to correct a scrivener's error or some other error in properly recording what the judge actually did." State ex rel. Poucher v. Vincent, 258 S.W.3d 62, 65 (Mo. banc 2008). The trial court indicated in its July 21, 2008 Order that a scrivener's error occurred when the order was dated July 11, 2008, rather than July 10, 2008.
If the trial judge rendered the decision on [the date], as he indicated in the order and docket sheet, then its validity is not affected by a delay of the court clerk in entering it into the court records, if such occurred.
There is a distinction between the judicial act of rendering a judgment or an order and the ministerial act of entering it upon the record.
Tice v. Tice, 850 S.W.2d 419, 420 (Mo.App. S.D.1993) (internal citations omitted).
In Tice, the docket entry reflected that an order of the court was filed four days after the court lost jurisdiction to amend a judgment. Tice, 850 S.W.2d at 420. The order, however, stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BRYANT v. CARTER County
...Defendants' motion for new trial on the last day it had the authority to do so, July 10, 2008. See Bryant v. Carter Cnty., 283 S.W.3d 802, 803-04 (Mo.App. S.D.2009) (“ Bryant I ”). The timely entry of the new trial order meant that the March 21, 2008, judgment in favor of Plaintiffs was no ......