Fleahman v. Fleahman
| Decision Date | 28 December 1999 |
| Citation | 25 S.W.3d 162 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. E.D. 1999) Kathy Fleahman, et al., Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Charles W. Fleahman, Jr., and Donna Marie Fleahman, Defendants/Appellants. Case Number: ED76030 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Handdown Date: |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Hon. Edward D. Hodge
Counsel for Appellant: Daniel W. Deiter
Counsel for Respondent: Dennis G. Schafer
Opinion Summary: Charles and Donna Fleahman appeal from the judgment in favor of Kathy Fleahman and her two daughters on a suit to set aside a deed for fraud and an accounting of partnership assets.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Division Five holds: The appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court has not entered a final judgment. The court has ordered an accounting of partnership assets, which has not occurred, and the court has not yet entered a final judgment on the accounting.
This case involves a suit to set aside a deed for fraud and an accounting of partnership assets. Charles Fleahman and his wife Donna Fleahman (Defendants) appeal from the judgment entered in favor of Kathy Fleahman and her two daughters (Plaintiffs). We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final judgment.
Kathy Fleahman and her husband Les Fleahman owned five tracts of property as tenants in common with Defendants. Charles and Les Fleahman were brothers. They also owned and operated a farm and automobile repair business together as equal partners. In the summer of 1993, Les became extremely ill. During that fall, Les and Kathy signed a deed transferring their one-half interest in all five tracts of real estate to Defendants. On February 8, 1994, Les died from his illness.
Plaintiffs brought this civil suit against Defendants, raising four counts in their petition: (1) Count I -- declaration of a constructive trust and an order setting aside the deed for fraud; (2) Count II -- unjust enrichment; (3) Count III -- an accounting of partnership assets and dissolution and liquidation of partnership; and (4) Count IV -- punitive damages for conversion of partnership assets. Defendants filed an answer and a counterclaim for breach of covenant of warranty.
After a bench trial, the court issued findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment. The court ordered that the deed be set aside. In the partnership matter, it ordered Defendants to deliver some of Les's personal property to Plaintiffs, awarded Plaintiffs actual damages of $4,400 for their share of the net profits of the partnership from 1994 to 1997, and awarded punitive damages of $5,000 for conversion of assets. In its conclusions of law, the trial court found "Plaintiffs are entitled to an accounting of the assets owned by the farm operation and auto repair service business as of February 8, 1994." The court ordered Defendants to "provide to Plaintiffs within thirty days of the date of this judgment an inventory of all assets owned by or in the possession of the farming operation and the auto repair service business as of February 8, 1994." Defendant appealed.
Although neither party initially raised an issue concerning appellate jurisdiction, it is this court's duty to do so sua sponte. McKean v. St. Louis County, 936 S.W.2d 184, 185 (Mo. App. E.D. 1996). Appellate courts have jurisdiction only over final judgments. Id. A judgment, order, or decree of the trial court is final and appealable only when it disposes of all the issues for all parties in the case and leaves nothing for future determination. Spectrum Cleaning Services, Inc. v. Blalack, 990 S.W.2d 656, 657 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999); Rule 74.01(b). If the trial court does not either resolve all the issues as to all parties or expressly designate "there is no just reason for delay," the appeal must be dismissed. McKean, 936 S.W.2d at 185; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knudson v. Sys. Painters Inc.
...issues for all parties in the case” such that nothing is left for future determination. Mo. Sup.Ct. R. 74.01(b); Fleahman v. Fleahman, 25 S.W.3d 162, 164 (Mo.Ct.App.1999). 7. In Simpson v. Thomure, 484 F.3d 1081, 1084 n. 2 (8th Cir.2007), we questioned our jurisdiction in Filla. However, we......
-
Bruner v. Workman Oil Co.
...the right to the accounting. Thereafter, the actual accounting would be held as a second stage of the proceeding. Fleahman v. Fleahman, 25 S.W.3d 162, 164 (Mo.App.1999). Counterclaim Counts I and II were treated as a single action for accounting. They were tried on the same date as part of ......
-
King v. Bullard
...535 (1926). If so, the court will enter an interlocutory order establishing that party's right to an accounting. Fleahman v. Fleahman, 25 S.W.3d 162, 164 (Mo.App. E.D.1999); Buffington, 285 S.W. at 535. Only if the court determines that such right exists will it proceed to the second stage ......
-
H2O'C Ltd. v. Brazos
...cases where an accounting of partnership assets has been requested, the normal procedure is for a bifurcated trial. Fleahman v. Fleahman, 25 S.W.3d 162, 163 (Mo.App. 1999). The first stage is to determine, via an interlocutory order, if there is a right an accounting, and if so then the sec......