Davis v. Beck
| Citation | 881 S.W.2d 264 |
| Decision Date | 17 August 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 19241,19241 |
| Parties | Jimmy Allen DAVIS, Appellant, v. Rhonda Sue (Davis) BECK, Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Julie Crader Dolan, Crader, Crader & Dolan, Sikeston, for appellant.
No appearance, for respondent.
The parties' marriage was dissolved in 1989. The decree awarded Appellant ("Jimmy") 1 custody of the parties' only child, a daughter born February 11, 1987. Respondent ("Rhonda") was awarded reasonable visitation rights, plus temporary custody on certain weekends. The decree was silent about child support (as was the parties' separation agreement).
In 1992, a "Modification Decree" changed Rhonda's visitation and temporary custody rights, but left Jimmy as primary custodian of the child.
In 1993, Jimmy filed a "Motion for Contempt," averring Rhonda had willfully and deliberately violated the visitation and temporary custody orders. Jimmy prayed the trial court to order Rhonda to show cause why she should not be held in contempt, and for an award of attorney fees. Simultaneously, Jimmy filed a motion to modify, wherein he sought: (1) restriction of Rhonda's visitation and temporary custody rights, and (2) an order that Rhonda pay him child support.
Rhonda responded with her own motion for contempt, alleging Jimmy had failed to abide by the visitation and temporary custody orders. Rhonda prayed the trial court to require Jimmy to show cause why he should not be held in contempt, and for an award of attorney fees. Rhonda also filed a motion to modify, seeking primary custody of the child and an order that Jimmy pay her child support.
The issues were tried October 19, 1993. Both parties appeared in person and with counsel. Rhonda's lawyer pointed out to the trial court that each side had filed a motion to modify and a motion for contempt.
After hearing the evidence, the trial court entered a "Modification Decree" on November 23, 1993. It recited that each party's motion to modify and motion for contempt had been taken up on October 19, 1993. It adjudicated the custody issues and ordered the parties to pay their own attorney fees, but made no reference to the child support issue or either party's motion for contempt. Jimmy brings this appeal from that decree.
Although not raised by either party, this Court is obligated to notice matters preventing it from obtaining jurisdiction. In the Matter of S.B.A., 850 S.W.2d 356, 357 (Mo.App.S.D.1993); Marsch v. Williams, 575 S.W.2d 897, 898 (Mo.App.1978).
For purpose of appeal, a judgment must be a final judgment and must ordinarily dispose of all parties and all issues in the case. Stith v. St. Louis Public Service Co., 363 Mo. 442, 251 S.W.2d 693, 695 (1952). Generally, no appeal lies until the trial court disposes of all issues between the parties. S.B.A., 850 S.W.2d at 357; Plummer v. United Savings & Loan Assn., 781 S.W.2d 827, 828 (Mo.App.S.D.1989). An appellate court lacks jurisdiction when the judgment appealed from is not final. Taylor v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 641 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Mo. banc 1982).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rea v. Moore
...an appellate court has no jurisdiction to consider the merits of the case. Peterson v. Medlock, 884 S.W.2d at 683; Davis v. Beck, 881 S.W.2d 264, 266 (Mo.App.S.D.1994). In order for a judgment to be final and, therefore, appealable it ordinarily must dispose of all issues for all in the cas......
-
Ruestman v. Ruestman
...(Mo.App. E.D.1992); Bay's Texaco Service and Supply Company, Inc. v. Mayfield, 792 S.W.2d 50, 51 (Mo.App. E.D.1990)." Davis v. Beck, 881 S.W.2d 264, 266 (Mo.App.1994). The trial court's judgment is not final for the purposes of appeal. The appeal is therefore 1. We refer to the parties, dec......
-
Lavender v. State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co., 20146
...The judgment is not a final judgment for purposes of appeal. Moss v. Lane, 899 S.W.2d 571, 572 (Mo.App.1995); Davis v. Beck, 881 S.W.2d 264, 265-266[1-3] (Mo.App.1994). Appeal All concur. 1 All references to statutes are to RSMo 1994, V.A.M.S., and all references to rules are to Missouri Ru......
-
Collins v. Collins, 19962
...does not make the determination set forth in Rule 74.01(b), the judgment is not final and the appeal must be dismissed. Davis v. Beck, 881 S.W.2d 264, 266 (Mo.App.1994). We have no jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a judgment lacking finality. Rea v. Moore, 891 S.W.2d 874 (Mo.App.1995......