Fombelle v. Poteete, 46145
| Decision Date | 19 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 46145,46145 |
| Citation | 655 S.W.2d 801 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | David K. FOMBELLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ross POTEETE, D/B/A Cape Plumbing, Defendant-Respondent. |
Albert C. Lowes, Catherine McBride, Jackson, for plaintiff-appellant.
Thomas K. O'Laughlin, II, Cape Girardeau, for defendant-respondent.
The Circuit Judge before whom this matter was originally pending sustained defendant's motion for a change of judge and, on June 7, 1982, the Supreme Court appointed an Associate Circuit Judge to assume jurisdiction of the case pursuant to its authority under Mo. Const. Art. V, § 6. On July 7, 1982, defendant filed a "Motion For Reconsideration Of Denial Of Request For Leave To File A Counterclaim" in which defendant alleged that his request for leave to file a counterclaim had been improperly denied by the original Circuit Judge. This motion was sustained on July 27, 1982 by the appointed Associate Circuit Judge who included in his order the following: "The court further finds that this order is a final and appealable order within the provisions of Supreme Court Rule of Civil Procedure 81.06." The judge further ordered a stay of all other matters pending in the cause until an appellate decision is reached. This appeal ensued.
Rule 81.06 permits a trial court, for the purposes of appeal, to designate as final a judgment in a separate trial of claims arising out of the same transactions, occurrences or subject matter as the other claims stated or joined in the case. Here there was no separate trial--there was no judgment, partial or otherwise--simply a pre-trial order relating to a procedural matter. Rule 81.06 has no application to pre-trial orders that do not dispose of all claims as to all parties, comprising an independent unit which the trial court has ordered separated under Rule 66.02.
The designation of finality by the trial court is not conclusive.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Speck v. Union Elec. Co., 68781
...of the order entered, not the name designated to it by the trial court that determines finality and appealability. Fombelle v. Poteete, 655 S.W.2d 801, 802 (Mo.App.1983). If the order is not final then the appeal must be dismissed. Knight v. Keaton, 660 S.W.2d 752, 753 Rule 81.06 does not a......
-
Hanrahan v. Nashua Corp., 53608
...Wirthlin v. Wirthlin, 662 S.W.2d 571, 572 (Mo.App.1983)--motion to transfer cause from equity to jury trial docket; Fombelle v. Poteete, 655 S.W.2d 801, 802 (Mo.App.1983). The order striking references to age discrimination in Count I, but leaving intact the service letter count, is therefo......
-
Erslon v. Cusumano, 48591
...of the order entered, not the name designated to it by the trial court that determines finality and appealability. Fombelle v. Poteete, 655 S.W.2d 801, 802 (Mo.App.1983). If the order is not final then the appeal must be dismissed. Knight v. Keaton, 660 S.W.2d 752, 753 Rule 81.06 does not a......
-
Wirthlin v. Wirthlin
...is nothing more than a pre-trial order relating to a procedural matter. Rule 81.06 had no application to such orders. Fombelle v. Poteete, 655 S.W.2d 801, 802 (Mo.App.1983). Defendant cites Benoist v. Thomas, 121 Mo. 660, 27 S.W. 609 (1894) to support her contention that an order denying a ......