Cross v. Cross, 59329
| Citation | 815 S.W.2d 65 |
| Decision Date | 23 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 59329,59329 |
| Parties | In re the Marriage of Marilyn Jeanne CROSS, Appellant, v. David W. CROSS, Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Susan Kreher Roach, Chesterfield, for appellant.
Gregory S. Kessler, Daniel P. Card II, Clayton, for respondent.
Appellant seeks recovery of alleged arrearages pursuant to a mandate of this court awarding her temporary maintenance. The trial court quashed a garnishment filed by appellant to recover these funds, and she appeals the decision. This appeal is moot because the appellant released the garnishment. The suit is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Parties in this case are litigants in a divorce action, originally filed in March of 1988. By an order pendente lite (PDL) issued by the trial court on February 27 1989, respondent was ordered to pay appellant for child support, but appellant's motion for temporary maintenance was denied. Appellant appealed the decision and achieved a reversal of the denial of temporary maintenance. Cross v. Cross, 790 S.W.2d 928 (Mo.App., E.D.1990). A mandate was issued to this effect on March 21, 1990. The mandate did not state whether it was retroactive to the date of the PDL order.
Following receipt of the opinion and mandate from this Court, appellant filed a garnishment against respondent, claiming arrearages in maintenance from the period February 27, 1989, through March 21, 1990. Respondent filed a motion to quash this garnishment. The trial court determined that the date of this court's opinion, February 6, 1990, was the effective date of the order to pay temporary maintenance and quashed the garnishment.
Appellant appealed the trial court's determination but, during the pendency of the appeal and before the cause was actually submitted to this court, appellant voluntarily released the garnishment. Because there is no evidence to the contrary, the presumption that this release was both knowing and intelligent must stand as conclusive.
It is settled law that Missouri courts do not determine moot cases. Duffe v. Zych, 676 S.W.2d 70, 72 (Mo.App., E.D.1984); State ex rel. Hooker v. City of St. Charles, 668 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Mo.App., E.D.1984). A case is moot when some event occurs making it impossible for the reviewing court to grant relief. Humphrey v. Humphrey, 362 S.W.2d 92, 95 (St.L.Ct.App.1962). In this case, it is impossible for this court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rich v. Rich, 62932
...of Transp. of Mo., 763 S.W.2d 666, 667 (Mo. banc 1989); Brand v. Boatmen's Bank, 824 S.W.2d 89, 91-92 (Mo.App.1992); Cross v. Cross, 815 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Mo.App.1991). A case becomes moot on appeal if an event occurs that alters the parties' position so that the controversy ceases, making it ......
-
Hihn v. Hihn
...unnecessary or makes granting effectual relief by the court impossible, the case is moot and generally should be dismissed." Id. In Cross v. Cross, we said that it is impossible for us to grant effective relief where there is no actual controversy. Cross v. Cross, 815 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Mo.App.......
-
Election Board v. City of Lee's Summit
...narrow and discretionary) exists where "a case becomes moot after argument and submission." Kinsky, 109 S.W.3d at 196; Cross v. Cross, 815 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Mo.App. E.D.1991). Because the election at issue here occurred before the circuit court rendered its decision, this exception does not ap......
-
Juvenile Officer v. H.J.S. (In re Interest of J.T.S.)
...and will otherwise evade appellate review.” Id. These exceptions to the mootness doctrine are to be narrowly construed. Cross v. Cross, 815 S.W.2d 65, 66 (Mo.App.E.D.1991). If an exception to the mootness doctrine applies, dismissal of a moot appeal becomes discretionary. T.D.H. v. O'Connel......