Harting v. Stout
| Decision Date | 30 April 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 48864,48864 |
| Citation | 690 S.W.2d 458 |
| Parties | Irvin C. HARTING and Francis M. Harting, his wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Francis R. STOUT, Eugenia G. Stout, Richard M. Stout, and Susan Schepman, Defendants, and Susan Schepman, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Richard M. Stout, Chesterfield, for appellant.
David C. Drury, St. Louis, for plaintiffs-respondents.
The original action herein seeks damages for fraud and the recision of a contract for the purchase of real property. This appeal lies from an order awarding the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) against one defendant for failure to appear for deposition. This appeal is dismissed.
While appellant formally presents two points charging how the trial court erred, it is unnecessary for purposes of the disposition of this appeal to even take up or discuss either point.
The file as provided this court reveals a dispute over the attempt by respondents to secure the deposition of appellant, Susan Schepman, and her attempt to comply or her failure to do so. Respondents ultimately filed a motion to strike pleadings. That motion was overruled, but the trial court awarded respondents the sum of $500.00 against Susan Schepman. The cross-motion of Susan Schepman for the appointment of a commissioner and for sanctions was overruled, except the trial court, in its order, appointed a commissioner and apportioned the costs for same between the parties. Susan Schepman filed her motion to designate the $500.00 order (judgment) as final for purposes of appeal. The trial court ordered the same as final for purposes of appeal and set a $750.00 bond. This appeal followed.
While appellant sets forth a factual-legal argument attacking the validity of the $500.00 award (to which respondents have filed no brief), appellant misses the entire point regarding this appeal. The mistake by appellant is understandable due to the error committed by the trial court. It is evident that neither appellant nor the trial court understand the import or intent of Rule 81.05.
Rule 81.05 requires that before a cause is appealable, the judgment from which the appeal is taken must have disposed of all issues and all the parties. This is required to prevent piecemeal litigation or presentment of cases on appeal. Warmann v. Ebeling, 625 S.W.2d 691 (Mo.App.1981). This court is required sua sponte to determine whether a judgment is final for purposes of appeal; and if the appeal is found to be premature, the appeal must be dismissed. Haley v. City of Linn Creek, 583 S.W.2d 590 (Mo.App.1979), International Harvester Credit Corp. v. Formento, 621 S.W.2d 90 (Mo.App.1981).
The imposition of sanctions lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Upon review, determination is made if there...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Speck v. Union Elec. Co., 68781
...inapplicable and it is not within a court's discretion to designate its order final for purposes of appeal. See, e.g., Harting v. Stout, 690 S.W.2d 458, 459 (Mo.App.1985) (trial court's designation of its order as final for purposes of appeal was without effect since Rule 81.06 is inapplica......
-
Buemi v. Kerckhoff
...an order imposing monetary sanctions for immediate appeal was invalid because that rule did not apply to sanction proceedings. 690 S.W.2d 458, 459 (Mo.App.1985). The conclusion that Rule 74.01(b) does not allow for the immediate appeal of a trial court ruling imposing sanctions is further s......
-
Buemi v. Kerckhoff
...an order imposing monetary sanctions for immediate appeal was invalid because that rule did not apply to sanction proceedings. 690 S.W.2d 458, 459 (Mo. App. 1985). The conclusion that Rule 74.01(b) does not allow for the immediate appeal of a trial court ruling imposing sanctions is further......
-
Hanrahan v. Nashua Corp., 53608
...simply a pretrial order relating to a procedural matter, there is no final judgment or order for purposes of appeal. Harting v. Stout, 690 S.W.2d 458, 459 (Mo.App.1985)--order imposing sanction; Daniels v. Richardson, 665 S.W.2d 76, 77 (Mo.App.1984); Wirthlin v. Wirthlin, 662 S.W.2d 571, 57......