Esry v. Esry, 12250

Decision Date05 February 1982
Docket NumberNo. 12250,12250
Citation628 S.W.2d 700
PartiesSherlyn Denise ESRY, Petitioner-Respondent, v. Gary Wayne ESRY, Respondent, and William E. Hill and Helen Hill, Movants-Appellants.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Dan K. Purdy, Osceola, for petitioner-respondent.

James R. Sandifar, Bunch, O'Sullivan, Sandifar & Hill, Kansas City, for movants-appellants.

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

This is a dispute over custody of a five-year-old male child, Brent Wayne Esry (Brent), the only child of the marriage of Sherlyn Denise Esry (Sherlyn) and Gary Wayne Esry (Gary). Appellants are the parents of Sherlyn and contest the trial court granting custody of Brent to her.

Sherlyn's and Gary's marriage was dissolved by the circuit court of Cedar County on December 18, 1978, and Sherlyn was granted custody of Brent. On August 8, 1979, Gary filed a motion to modify the original decree seeking custody. Sherlyn then filed an application for change of judge which was granted on October 29, 1979, thereby disqualifying the regular circuit judge. Judge Raymond T. Huesemann was assigned to handle the matter by order received in the circuit clerk's office November 19, 1979. On December 26, 1979, appellants filed an application for reasonable visitation rights with Brent and a motion to intervene, both "Pursuant to 452.400 R.S.Mo., 1979, Section 3."

On January 16, 1980, Gary filed a motion for contempt and temporary custody pending determination of his motion to modify. He requested temporary custody in himself and an order authorizing the maternal grandparents to have physical custody of Brent in the event Gary was unable to have physical custody because of his employment. That day the regular circuit judge, who had granted the application for change of judge, entered an order denominated "CITATION FOR CONTEMPT, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND ORDER OF TEMPORARY CUSTODY" granting temporary custody of the child to Gary or if he is unable "to pursue and take physical custody of said minor child from the petitioner, it is ordered that the maternal grandparents, William E. Hill and Helen Hill, ... shall be empowered to take the physical custody of said minor child from the petitioner".

On January 23, 1980, a motion for transfer of custody was filed by Gary Wayne Esry requesting "full and permanent custody" of the child. That day the regular circuit judge made an "ORDER OF TRANSFER OF PERMANENT CUSTODY" transferring custody of the child to Gary. The order provided "that the maternal grandparents, William E. Hill and Helen Hill, or either of them, shall be impowered to take the physical custody of said minor child from the Petitioner, Sherlyn Denise Esry, and deliver him to the custody of the Respondent, Gary Wayne Esry; further, said William E. Hill and Helen Hill are authorized to bring any action or proceedings on behalf of the Respondent, Gary Wayne Esry, in any Court, to enforce or carry out the provisions of this order."

Apparently both the motion for contempt and temporary custody and the motion for transfer of custody were heard and the orders were issued without notice or service upon Sherlyn or her attorney of record. Pursuant to those orders, on January 29, 1980, "four policemen" came to Sherlyn's home in California and took Brent. There were court proceedings in California, but what transpired is not in the record. In any event, Brent was returned to Missouri and appellants apparently took physical custody of him. On February 13, 1980, Sherlyn moved to set aside the citation for contempt, order to show cause and order of temporary custody and the order of transfer of permanent custody, because of the disqualification of the judge who had entered them. On February 21, 1980, Judge Huesemann set those orders aside and ordered the "Temporary custody of minor child placed in Wm. E. & Helen Hill, maternal grandparents pending March hearing."

On March 31, 1980, the parties and their attorneys appeared and presented evidence. The judge entered an order which said that he took Gary's motion to modify "under advisement for 6 months and temporarily places care, custody and control of Brent Wayne Esry with Wm. E. and Helen Hills maternal grandparents, subject to reasonable visitation by both Petitioner and Respondent ... and dismisses motion for reasonable visitation previously filed by Wm. E. and Helen Hill."

Sherlyn remarried on September 7, 1980 and was living in California with her new husband and his thirteen and sixteen year old sons. On January 21, 1981, Sherlyn filed a "MOTION FOR RESTORATION OF CUSTODY OF MINOR CHILD", seeking to have custody of Brent. On March 11, 1981, the trial court held a hearing to take up or "review" all motions regarding custody of Brent. The parties stipulated that this hearing was to determine who should have custody of Brent. At the conclusion of the hearing custody was granted to Sherlyn. Appellants contend here that there was not a sufficient change of circumstances shown to warrant the trial court's transferring custody of Brent from them to Sherlyn. They also contend that the trial court erred in not sustaining their motion for new trial because of certain "newly discovered evidence" alleged in the motion.

Sherlyn contends that appellants have no standing to prosecute this appeal, relying on Lipsey v. Lipsey, 464 S.W.2d 529 (Mo.App.1971). There grandparents had custody of minor children under a court order. Pursuant to a motion to modify, custody was granted to the mother. Although the appeal was by the father, the court there noted that it was for the benefit of the grandparents and that they have neither standing to litigate a motion to modify nor enforceable custodial rights by reason of their past actual custody. 464 S.W.2d at 531. Numerous cases make similar statements. See In re Duncan, 365 S.W.2d 567, 570, 4 A.L.R.3d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Searcy v. Seedorff
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 21, 1999
    ...See Anderson v. Hall, 823 S.W.2d 109, 110-11 (Mo. App. 1991); Shortt v. Lasswell, 765 S.W.2d 387, 389 (Mo. App. 1989); Esry v. Esry, 628 S.W.2d 700 (Mo. App. 1982); Callaway v. Callaway, 590 S.W.2d 700 (Mo. App. 1979); Meinking v. Meinking, 529 S.W.2d 440 (Mo. App. 975). Under the exception......
  • Hawthorne v. Hills
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 14, 1993
    ...for a new trial. Rule 78.07. Failure to timely file a motion for a new trial preserves nothing for appellate review. Esry v. Esry, 628 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Mo.App.1982). Thus, the filing of the motion for a new trial on October 25, 1991, one day in excess of the time permitted for filing the mo......
  • Shortt v. Lasswell
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 15, 1989
    ...immaturity is an essential element of the exception expounded in Callaway. A later case further clarifying the rule is Esry v. Esry, 628 S.W.2d 700 (Mo.App.1982). The evidence there contained no showing of parental immaturity. In Esry the mother was actually given custody in the initial div......
  • N.W. by M.G. v. B.W.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • July 1, 1986
    ...as an aggrieved party for this case will not preclude consideration of her appeal on the merits on the custody issue. Esry v. Esry, 628 S.W.2d 700, 702 (Mo.App.1982). The grandparents could have been aggrieved parties only if they became in loco parentis as a result of a court custody award......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT