Cook v. Cook

• Decision Date: 25 June 2002
• Docket Number: No. WD 59899.,WD 59899.
• Citation: Cook v. Cook, 97 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. App. 2002)
• Parties: Linda COOK, Respondent Pro Se, v. Jerry COOK, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

97 S.W.3d 482

Linda COOK, RespondentPro Se, v.Jerry COOK, Appellant.

No. WD 59899.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 25, 2002.

John R. Shank, Jr., Kansas City, for Appellant.

Linda Cook, Kansas City, pro se.

Before ULRICH, P.J., BRECKENRIDGE and HARDWICK, JJ.

LISA WHITE HARDWICK, Judge.

Jerry Cook challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the renewal of a full order of protection and maintenance award to Linda Cook.We reverse and remand the cause for dismissal because the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to proceed on the renewal motion.

Factual and Procedural History

On February 4, 1999, Linda Cook filed a petition for order of protection against her husband, Jerry Cook, pursuant to the Adult Abuse Act, § 455.010 et seq. R.S.Mo.After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted a full order of protection and ordered Mr. Cook to pay maintenance of $2,000 monthly to Mrs. Cook.The order, entered March 30, 1999, was set to expire on September 28, 1999.

On September 13, 1999, Mrs. Cook filed a motion to renew the order of protection.The court heard evidence and granted the renewal on October 28, 1999.This second full order of protection was made effective for 180 days, until March 30, 2000, and the court reduced Mr. Cook's maintenance obligation to $1,250 monthly.

In March 2000, Mrs. Cook requested another renewal of the protection order.After hearing, the court granted the third full order of protection for a one-year period, until March 30, 2001.The court ordered Mr. Cook to continue paying maintenance of $1,250 monthly.

Mrs. Cook filed a motion to renew the order of protection for a fourth time on March 1, 2001.The court granted a one-year renewal until March 30, 2002, after hearing evidence from both parties.In the judgment entered March 13, 2001, the court also retroactively reduced Mr. Cook's maintenance obligation to $750 for the period of August 1, 2000 through April 1, 2001, and ordered that maintenance terminate thereafter.

Mr. Cook appeals the final judgment, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support renewal of the full order of protection and the maintenance award.Based on our determination that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we need not address the sufficiency of the evidence.

The Adult Abuse Act

The Adult Abuse Act authorizes the trial court to enter a full order of protection to a petitioner who proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, an allegation of abuse or stalking.§ 455.040.The order can restrain the respondent from having any contact with the petitioner and can remain in effect from 180 days to one year, as determined by the court.§§ 455.032,455.040.

A full order of protection is renewable upon a showing that its expiration will place the petitioner in an immediate and present danger of abuse.Capps v. Capps,715 S.W.2d 547, 552(Mo.App.1986).In § 455.040, the renewal provision states in relevant part:

Upon motion by the petitioner, and after a hearing by the court, the full order of protection may be renewed for a period of time the court deems appropriate, except that the order protective order shall be valid for at least one hundred eighty days and not more than one year from the expiration date of the originally issued full order of protection ... Upon motion by petitioner, the second full order of protection may be renewed for an additional period of time the court deems appropriate, except that the protective order shall be valid for at least one hundred eighty days and not more than one year.

Pursuant to this statute, an original full order of protection may be twice renewed, such that a petitioner may be entitled to receive a total of three full orders of protection.We note, as a preliminary and potentially dispositive matter, that the judgment appealed by Mr. Cook involves the fourth full order of protection entered by the court relative to the original petition filed by Mrs. Cook in February 1999.This raises the question of whether the trial court had authority to proceed on the final renewal motion.While neither party addressed this issue at the trial court or on appeal,¹we are obligated to consider whether Mrs. Cook's motion failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and thereby deprived the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction.Videon Corp. v. Burton,369 S.W.2d 264, 267(Mo.App.1963)(courts should examine subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte);Roy v. Mo. Dep't. of Corr.,23 S.W.3d 738, 744(Mo. App. W.D.2000)(failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is related to subject matter jurisdiction and may be addressed sua sponte, though not preserved by either party);Rule 84.13(a).

Jurisdiction Issue Is Dispositive

Subject matter jurisdiction involves the nature of the cause of action or the relief sought and exists only when the court has the right to proceed to determine the controversy at issue or grant the relief requested.Group Health Plan Inc. v. State Bd. of Registration for the Healing Arts,787 S.W.2d 745, 748(Mo.App. E.D.1990).This jurisdiction is derived from law and cannot be conferred by waiver or consent.Steele v. Steele,978 S.W.2d 835, 837(Mo.App. W.D.1998).The actions and proceedings of a court without subject matter jurisdiction are void, and the only recourse is to dismiss the cause.McDonald v. Thompson,35 S.W.3d 906, 913(Mo.App.S.D.2001.)

When a court of general jurisdiction is engaged in the exercise of a special statutory power, that court's jurisdiction is limited by the statute.Thornton v. Empire Bank,955 S.W.2d 249, 250(Mo.App. S.D.1997).In the instant case, the trial court engaged in the exercise of power granted by the Adult Abuse Act and, therefore, the court's subject matter jurisdiction was limited by the provisions of § 455.040.

Courts must...