Hamilton v. Hamilton
| Decision Date | 22 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 46384,46384 |
| Citation | 661 S.W.2d 82 |
| Parties | Warren B. HAMILTON, Appellant, v. Dena W. HAMILTON, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Dale H. Close, Richland, for appellant.
Lester W. Duggan, Jr., St. Peters, for respondent.
Appellant, Warren B. Hamilton, appeals from the order of the trial court finding him in civil contempt. We dismiss the appeal without prejudice as premature.
The parties to this action were divorced in 1971. The present proceedings were initiated in August 1979 by respondent's motion to modify the divorce decree and petition to cite for contempt. After a hearing at which evidence was adduced, the trial court, on August 27, 1982, found appellant in civil contempt for failure to pay past-due child support of $18,825. Appellant was ordered committed to the St. Charles County jail until such time as he either complied with the order to pay or submitted a plan for payment which was approved by the trial court. The trial court stayed its order until October 1, 1982. The record shows that appellant submitted a "Proposed Offer of Payment" on October 1, 1982, with an accompanying affidavit of his expenses. The record fails to show the disposition of this "Proposed Offer" or what, if any, action was taken on October 1. The final entry in the record is the filing of the notice of appeal on October 5, 1982.
The appealability of the trial court's order has not been questioned by the parties. The issue, however, goes to this court's jurisdiction and we therefore have a duty to examine it sua sponte. Nimmo v. Nimmo, 616 S.W.2d 131, 133 (Mo.App.1981). In order for an appeal to lie, there must be a final judgment or order. § 512.020, RSMo (1978); Adams v. Adams, 294 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Mo.1956).
The record before us falls short of satisfying that requirement. The trial court entered its order but stayed enforcement until October 1, 1982. On that date one of two things was to happen: either appellant would purge himself of the contempt or go to jail. The record as it was submitted to this court fails to reveal which, if either, occurred. After the case was submitted, without oral argument, appellant was directed pursuant to Rule 81.12(e), to supplement the record to include the following:
(1) A copy of the trial court's acceptance or rejection of Mr. Hamilton's proposed payment plan.
(2) A copy of the court order indicating payment in full by Mr. Hamilton of the child support, if there be one.
(3) A copy of the executed warrant and commitment of Mr. Hamilton to jail, if there be one.
(4) A copy of the bond permitting Mr. Hamilton's release from custody pending appeal, if there be one.
Appellant's response was that none of the requested documents exist. The record, therefore, fails to show that there is a final judgment that would give this court jurisdiction.
At the outset, we note that if appellant has purged himself of the contempt, no appeal lies. Yeager v. Yeager, 622 S.W.2d 339 (Mo.App.1981). Thus, payment or submission of an approved plan for payment would make this case moot and unappealable.
Even assuming, arguendo, that appellant has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Marriage of Crow and Gilmore
...City of Florissant v. Lee, 714 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Mo.App.1986); Niehoff v. Forney, 692 S.W.2d 635, 637 (Mo.App. 1985); Hamilton v. Hamilton, 661 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Mo.App.1983). But see Happy v. Happy, 941 S.W.2d 539, 543 (Mo.App. 1997); Carmack v. Carmack, 947 S.W.2d 842, 847 (Mo.App.1997). Seco......
-
21 West, Inc. v. Meadowgreen Trails, Inc.
...An order finding a party in contempt is interlocutory in nature and is not appealable until it has been enforced. Hamilton v. Hamilton, 661 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Mo.App.E.D.1983). A judgment of contempt ordering the payment of a fine to coerce compliance with a court order or to remedy noncomplian......
-
Nicholson v. Nicholson, 48188
... ... In order for an appeal to lie, there must be a final judgment or order. § 512.020, RSMo (1978); Hamilton v. Hamilton, ... 661 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Mo.App.1983). Certainly a dismissal with prejudice, assuming that all claims are adjudicated and all parties ... ...
-
Marriage of Smith, In re
...enforcement to make the contempt order appealable. See Niehoff v. Forney, 692 S.W.2d 635, 637[2-4] (Mo.App.1985); Hamilton v. Hamilton, 661 S.W.2d 82 (Mo.App.1983). The appellant's first point on appeal is that the trial court was utterly without jurisdiction to enforce its judgment while t......