Coleman v. Coleman, ED 85264.
| Decision Date | 28 March 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 85264.,ED 85264. |
| Citation | 187 S.W.3d 331 |
| Parties | Lana COLEMAN, Appellant, v. Anthony COLEMAN, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Jeanne Meyer Fox, Kirkwood, MO, for appellant.
Larry Delano Coleman, Raytown, MO, for respondent.
Lana Coleman ("Wife") appeals from the trial court's judgments dated May 28, 2004, November 24, 2003, and August 22, 2003 relating to two motions to "Cite and Punish [Anthony Coleman ("Husband")] for Contempt and/or to Determine Amounts Due to [Wife] from [Husband]" under the original divorce decree. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
The record before us appears to be incomplete. However, we glean the facts and procedural history as follows: Wife and Husband's marriage was dissolved on March 13, 1998 and the trial court entered a judgment dividing the marital property and awarding child support, time-limited maintenance and statutory maintenance to Wife ("Decree"). Neither party appealed the Decree. On January 23, 2003, Wife filed her first motion entitled "To Cite and Punish [Husband] for Contempt and/or to Determine Amounts Due to [Wife] from Husband" ("First Motion") requesting the trial court to enforce the provisions of the Decree. The prominent issues raised in this First Motion were whether (i) Wife is entitled to the title of the family residence pursuant to Section 17(a); (ii) Husband is in arrears on child support; (iii) Husband is in arrears on time-limited and statutory maintenance awarded to Wife; (iv) Husband converted IRA funds that were awarded to Wife; and (v) Wife is entitled to attorney's fees. In response, Husband filed a motion to dismiss. On February 18, 2003, the cause was heard. The parties agreed, and an order was entered, to sell the family residence. From the record before us, none of the issues raised in the First Motion were resolved, and only one issue, regarding the family residence, was addressed.
Pursuant to a court order dated March 26, 2003, the trial court appointed a real estate commissioner to sell the family residence and ordered the sale proceeds escrowed until further court order. On August 22, 2003, the trial court entered an order finding the family residence was sold and awarding $45,000 of the sale proceeds to Wife pursuant to the Decree for her interest in the family residence. The trial court also found that Husband was in arrears for child support in the amount of $83,730.04.1 The remaining sale proceeds were to be escrowed until further court order ("August Judgment").
One month later, on September 22, 2003, the Wife made a "Request for Findings" wherein she reiterated the same issues that were raised in her First Motion. On that same day, another hearing was held on Wife's First Motion, where according to the record before us, evidence was adduced on the issues raised in the First Motion. On November 24, 2003, the trial court entered an order making a finding on only one issue set forth in the First Motion. The trial court found that Section 17(a) of the Decree was unenforceable, thereby effectively vesting title to the family residence in Husband ("November Order"). The cause was continued until February of 2004.
Based on this finding, on December 14, 2003, Husband filed a motion seeking to receive the remainder of the sale proceeds. On January 22, 2004, Wife filed a motion in opposition to Husband's motion and filed a second motion to "Cite and punish [Husband] for Contempt and/or to Determine Amounts Due [Wife] from [Husband]" ("Second Motion"). In this Second Motion, she reiterates the same issues as set forth in her First Motion. On April 23, 2004, Husband renewed his motion seeking the remainder of the sale proceeds and attorney's fees.
On May 28, 2004, the trial court entered a judgment awarding the remainder of the sale proceeds to Wife ("May Judgment"). The court reasoned that Wife had a judgment lien which attached to the family residence before it was sold in September 2003 stemming from the August Order which awarded her child support. The trial court made no further findings regarding the issues raised in Wife's Second Motion. Further, the trial court noted that it did not decide the matter of attorney's fees because such issue was "premature because there remain substantive issues to be resolved." Wife appeals.2
This Court has a duty to examine its jurisdiction sua sponte. See In re Marriage of Werths, 33 S.W.3d 541, 542 (Mo. banc 2000). "In order for an appeal to lie, there must be a final judgment or order." Strickland v. Strickland, 941 S.W.2d 866, 867 (Mo.App. S.D.1997). "If an intended judgment does not dispose of all issues and all parties in the case or does not form a final disposition of the matter, it is not a final, appealable judgment and we have no jurisdiction to entertain an attempted appeal therefrom." Werths...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Cmty. Credit Union v. Levison
...unresolved Respondent's Counterclaim.Authority Requirements An appeal may only lie if there is a final judgment. Coleman v. Coleman, 187 S.W.3d 331, 333 (Mo.App. E.D.2006); see also Section 512.020. If there is no final judgment, an appellate court lacks authority and must dismiss the appea......
-
First Cmty. Credit Union v. Levison, ED98352
...left unresolved Respondent's Counterclaim.Authority Requirements An appeal may only lie if there is a final judgment. Coleman v. Coleman, 187 S.W.3d 331, 333 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006); see also Section 512.020. If there is no final judgment, an appellate court lacks authority and must dismiss th......
-
In Re The Marriage Of Kim E. Gardner, ED 94126
...after the January 8 judgment became final. Rule 81.05(b); Williams v. Williams, 41 S.W.3d 877, 878 (Mo. banc 2001); Coleman v. Coleman, 187 S.W.3d 331, 333 (Mo.App.2006); see also Reynolds v. Reynolds, 109 S.W.3d 258, 269 Attorney's Fees and Costs on Account For his sole point on appeal, hu......
-
In re Foreclosure Liens for Del. Land Taxes
...appeal is filed, the judgment is not final for purposes of appeal until the non-appealable judgment is made final. Coleman v. Coleman, 187 S.W.3d 331, 333 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). Further, in a case with multiple claims, a judgment is not final until after the court properly makes an express det......