Haywood v. Haywood, 36327
| Decision Date | 12 August 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 36327,36327 |
| Citation | 527 S.W.2d 36 |
| Parties | Winston G. HAYWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rosalie C. HAYWOOD, Defendant-Respondent. . Louis District, Division One |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Leyhe, Jacobsmeyer & Meyer, Donald E. Heck, Clayton, for plaintiff-appellant.
Lemay & Dunlop, Clayton, for defendant-respondent.
Upon submission of plaintiff's motion to modify a prior decree of divorce, the trial court terminated a child support award of $37.50 per week, but denied the other part of the motion seeking to reduce or eliminate alimony of $200.00 per month. Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial as to the issue of alimony. This was overruled by the court on June 19, 1974. Plaintiff then filed a timely notice of appeal but directed it to be 'from the Order overruling Motion for New Trial entered in this action on the 19th day of June, 1974'.
The denial of a motion for new trial or other after-trial motion is not an appealable order. Where an after-trial motion is denied, the appeal should be from the judgment to which the motion is directed. The notice is therefore ineffectual to bring anything before this court. A failure to file a proper notice of appeal alone is sufficient reason for this court to dismiss the appeal. Cady v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 512 S.W.2d 882, 884(2--4) (Mo.App.1974). But we would probably attribute a good faith effort to appeal from the judgment to plaintiff and consider the appeal if it were not for the deficiencies in the plaintiff's brief.
Rule 84.04(d) requires that:
Plaintiff has set out as points relied on three abstract statements of the law with a citation of authorities under each statement. We might agree that the law is stated correctly in the brief, but there is a complete failure to comply with Rule 84.04(5). Although we review the entire cause upon both the law and the evidence in a court-tried case, this does not excuse compliance with this rule. We do not review the case on our own initiative to find some theory and facts in support thereof in order to establish that the trial court reached the wrong...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allison v. Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
...dealt with a notice of appeal from an order overruling a motion for new trial, obviously an unappealable order, see Haywood v. Haywood, 527 S.W.2d 36, 37 (Mo.App.1975), instead of from the underlying judgment and, therefore, the issues were discernible from the briefs and the record. That r......
-
State ex rel. State Highway Commission v. Nickerson, KCD
...an exception in this case to enforcement of above rule. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 1 Recent examples include: Haywood v. Haywood, 527 S.W.2d 36 (Mo.App.1975); Matter of Search Warrant of Property, etc., 528 S.W.2d 452 (Mo.App.1975); Cope v. McClain, 529 S.W.2d 6 (Mo.App.1975); Ma......
-
Rauh v. Interco, Inc.
...In support of this proposition Ms. Rauh relies on Pittman v. Reynolds, 679 S.W.2d 892, 893[1, 2] (Mo.App.1984); Haywood v. Haywood, 527 S.W.2d 36, 37[1, 2, 3] (Mo.App.1975); Cady v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 512 S.W.2d 882, 884[2, 3, 4] These cases cited by Ms. Rauh posed situations in ......
-
Pittman v. Reynolds
...motion is not an appealable order but that appeal must be taken from the judgment to which the motion was directed. Haywood v. Haywood, 527 S.W.2d 36 (Mo.App.1975). A notice of appeal which seeks review on the basis of a denial of a motion for new trial or other after judgment motion overru......