Fuller v. Griffith
| Decision Date | 31 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | WD 83552 |
| Citation | 630 S.W.3d 911 |
| Parties | George FULLER, Appellant, v. Cindy GRIFFITH, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Mark Blanton, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
George L. Fuller, Charleston, MO, appellant acting pro se.
Before Division One: Alok Ahuja, P.J., and Lisa White Hardwick and Anthony Rex Gabbert, JJ.
George Fuller is currently incarcerated in the Southeast Correctional Center in Charleston. Fuller filed a small claims petition in the Circuit Court of Cole County against multiple employees of the Department of Corrections ("DOC"), alleging that they had destroyed or lost his property. After the small claims division denied Fuller's claims, he applied for a trial de novo. The Circuit Clerk initially refused to file Fuller's application, because it was not accompanied by a filing fee or in forma pauperis application. The court then dismissed Fuller's refiled application as untimely. Fuller appeals. We conclude that the circuit court erroneously refused to file Fuller's original, timely application. We accordingly reverse the circuit court's judgment, and remand the case to the circuit court for further proceedings on Fuller's Application for Trial De Novo.
On January 28, 2019, Fuller filed his pro se small claims petition against the defendants. The petition sought damages of $2500. In his petition, Fuller alleged that the defendants had: (1) confiscated and destroyed his legal materials and personal property; (2) refused to reimburse him for the cost of copy cards he had purchased at a DOC facility from which he had been transferred, and which were now unusable; (3) allowed another inmate to have access to Fuller's cell, resulting in the theft of Fuller's property; and (4) failed to return Fuller's eyeglasses to him after he was released from administrative segregation.
Along with his petition, Fuller filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis , which the court granted.
On May 30, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. They contended that Fuller had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and that his claims were barred by sovereign immunity, official immunity, and the public duty doctrine. The court granted the defendants’ motion and dismissed Fuller's claims with prejudice on July 8, 2019.
Four days later, on July 12, 2019, Fuller filed an application for a trial de novo. The Circuit Clerk sent Fuller a response on July 15, 2019, which stated:
On July 30, 2019, Fuller re-filed his Application for Trial De Novo , along with a Motion and Affidavit in Support of Request to Proceed As a Poor Person, and a certified statement of his offender account for the preceding six months. The defendants responded with a motion to dismiss Fuller's Application on the basis that it was filed out of time. The circuit court granted the defendants’ motion in an order entered on August 20, 2019, and dismissed Fuller's Application without prejudice.
Fuller filed a notice of appeal on January 9, 2020. After this Court determined that the circuit court's dismissal ruling was contained in an unappealable order, the circuit court entered a final judgment dismissing Fuller's Application on April 15, 2020.
"Before we consider the merits of an appeal, we must determine whether we have jurisdiction to consider the appeal." Residential & Resort Assocs. v. Wolfe , 274 S.W.3d 566, 568-69 (Mo. App. W.D. 2009) (citation omitted).
First, we determine whether there is a final, appealable judgment. Here, the circuit court dismissed Fuller's Application for Trial De Novo without prejudice. "[G]enerally a dismissal without prejudice is not a final judgment and, therefore, is not appealable." Phox v. Boes , 481 S.W.3d 920, 921 (Mo. App. W.D. 2016) (citation omitted). An appeal may be taken from a dismissal without prejudice, however, where the dismissal has the "practical effect of terminating the litigation." New England Carpenters Pension Fund v. Haffner , 391 S.W.3d 453, 459 n.6 (Mo. App. S.D. 2012) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). If the dismissal was such that an attempt to refile a motion or petition would be futile, the dismissal ruling is appealable. Chromalloy Am. Corp. v. Elyria Foundry Co. , 955 S.W.2d 1, 4 (Mo. 1997) ; Doe v. Visionaire Corp. , 13 S.W.3d 674, 676 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000). Because any attempt by Fuller to refile his Application for Trial De Novo would be futile, the circuit court's dismissal without prejudice was a final, appealable judgment.
Fuller's Notice of Appeal was timely, even though it was filed on January 9, 2020, and purported to appeal an order entered by the circuit court on August 20, 2019. The circuit court's dismissal of the Application for Trial De Novo was initially documented in an order which was not denominated as a "judgment" as required by Rule 74.01(a). The order was therefore not appealable when it was entered in August 2019. The circuit court did not incorporate its dismissal ruling into a document denominated as a "judgment" until April 15, 2020. That judgment became final thirty days later, on May 15, 2020. Rule 81.05(a). Fuller's notice of appeal, filed on January 9, 2020, was actually premature. Under Rule 81.05(b), it is "considered as filed immediately after the time the judgment bec[a]me[ ] final for the purpose of appeal." Fuller's Notice of Appeal was accordingly timely and effective.
We finally consider whether we have the statutory authority to hear this appeal given the case's origin in the circuit court's small claims division. "The right to appeal is purely statutory and where a statute does not give a right to appeal, no right exists." State ex rel. Koster v. ConocoPhillips Co. , 493 S.W.3d 397, 399 (Mo. 2016) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "An appeal without statutory sanction confers no authority upon an appellate court except to enter an order dismissing the appeal." Farinella v. Croft , 922 S.W.2d 755, 757–58 (Mo. 1996) (citation omitted).
Section 512.020 "provides that a party may appeal a final judgment ‘of any trial court in any civil cause from which an appeal is ... no[t] clearly limited in special statutory proceedings.’ " Turner-Bey v. Hagenhoff , 413 S.W.3d 676, 677–78 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (quoting § 512.020). Small claims cases, such as Fuller's, are "special statutory proceedings governed by section 482.300 through 482.365, RSMo." Id. at 678. Section 482.365.2 provides that "[a]ny party aggrieved by any final judgment rendered by a small claims court in a small claims proceeding ... may have a trial de novo. " Thus, if a litigant seeks review of a small claims judgment, "his sole recourse [is] to file for a trial de novo in the circuit court; he cannot appeal to this court directly." Prosser v. Derickson , 1 S.W.3d 608, 609 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) ; see also Turner-Bey , 413 S.W.3d at 678.
Relying on Turner-Bey , the defendants argue that Fuller was not entitled to appeal the circuit court's judgment to this Court. We disagree. Turner-Bey merely holds that a litigant may not appeal a judgment entered in a small claims case directly to this Court. But Fuller did not seek to appeal directly. Instead, he filed an Application for Trial De Novo in the circuit court, as contemplated by § 482.365.2, RSMo. The circuit court dismissed his Application, on grounds which Fuller contends are erroneous. A small-claims litigant who has filed an application for trial de novo , and who alleges that the application was erroneously denied, is entitled to appeal to this Court from the circuit court's denial of the application. See Bey v. Precythe , 586 S.W.3d 781 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (); see also C&F Invs., LLC v. Hall , 149 S.W.3d 557 (Mo. App. E.D. 2004) (); Distribution Transp. Servs., Inc. v. Salihovic , 2 S.W.3d 822, 824 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999) (same).
We have jurisdiction over Fuller's appeal, and proceed to consideration of the merits.
Although Fuller raises seven Points on appeal, we consider only Point VI, which argues that the circuit court erroneously dismissed his Application for Trial De Novo.
Fuller's sixth Point raises legal questions concerning the interpretation of the statute authorizing trials de novo in small claims actions; those legal questions are subject to de novo review on appeal. Bey , 586 S.W.3d at 784.
Section 482.365.2, RSMo provides:
Any party aggrieved by any final judgment rendered by a small claims court in a small claims proceeding, except a judgment by consent, may have a trial de...
To continue reading
Request your trial