In Re. Marriage Of Werths

Decision Date27 December 2000
Parties(Mo.banc 2000) . In Re the Marriage of: Shelly Werths, Respondent, and Donald Bradley, Respondent, and Director, Division of Child Support Enforcement, Appellant. Case Number: SC82586 Supreme Court of Missouri Handdown Date:
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Johnson County, Hon. Joseph P. Dandurand

Counsel for Appellant: Gary L. Gardner and Carolyn H. Kerr

Counsel for Respondent: Karl H. Timmerman and Troy D. Losh-North

Opinion Summary:

The Division of Child Support Enforcement appeals the trial court's finding that no modification of an existing child support order was warranted, arguing the court erred in finding certain statutory sections unconstitutional.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Court en banc holds:

The trial court's intended judgment ordered the cause set for trial de novo. The judgment does not finally dispose of all the claims; the outcome of the case is left to future determination. Under the final judgment rule, this Court has no jurisdiction over the appeal.

Opinion Author: PER CURIAM

Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. All concur.

Opinion:

The Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) appeals from the trial court's finding that no modification of the existing child support order is warranted. Appeal dismissed.

DCSE asserts four claims of error. First, the trial court erred in declaring sections 452.370.8, 454.400.2(13), 454.498, RSMo Supp. 1999, violative of the due process and equal protection provisions of the United States Constitution and the Missouri Constitution. Second, the trial court erred in declaring sections 452.370.8, 454.400.2(13), and 454.498, RSMo Supp. 1999, violative of the separation of powers and judicial review provisions of the Missouri Constitution. Third, the trial court erred in declaring sections 454.490.1 and 454.513, RSMo Supp. 1999, violative of the separation of powers and judicial review provisions of the Missouri Constitution. Fourth, the trial court erred when it set aside the order of the director of DCSE modifying the existing child support order.

In all appeals, this Court is required to examine its jurisdiction sua sponte. Avidan v. Transit Cas. Co., 20 S.W.3d 521, 523 (Mo. banc 2000); Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239, 244 (Mo. banc 1997); Boley v. Knowles, 905 S.W.2d 86, 88 (Mo. banc 1995); Committee for Educ. Equal. v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. banc 1994). "A prerequisite to appellate review is that there be a final judgment." Section 512.020, RSMo 1994; Boley, 905 S.W.2d at 88. If there is no final judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal. Avidan, 20 S.W.3d at 523. A judgment is final only if it leaves nothing for future determination. Id.; see also Rule 74.01(b). "If an intended judgment does not dispose of all issues and all parties in the case or does not form a final disposition of the matter, it is not a final, appealable judgment and we have no jurisdiction to entertain an attempted appeal therefrom." Id. (quoting Wallace v. Hankins, 541 S.W.2d 82, 84 (Mo. App. 1976)).

A review of the record in this case reveals that the trial court's intended judgment does not constitute an appealable order under the final judgment rule. In one portion of its intended judgment entry, that portion in which the trial court found an absence of substantial and continuing changed circumstances so as to defeat the order of the director of DCSE modifying child support, the trial court, apparently acting pursuant to section 454.496.7, RSMo Supp. 1999, ordered, among other things, "This cause shall be set for Trial de Novo." As a consequence, the intended judgment, contemplating a trial de novo, does not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • In re Marriage of Michel
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • September 13, 2004
    ...thereafter posted a $2,700 appeal bond. "In all appeals, this [c]ourt is required to examine its jurisdiction sua sponte." In re Marriage of Werths, 33 S.W.3d 541, 542 (Mo. banc 2000). "In order for an appeal to lie, there must be a final judgment or order." Strickland v. Strickland, 941 S.......
  • First Cmty. Credit Union v. Levison
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 30, 2013
    ...see also Section 512.020. If there is no final judgment, an appellate court lacks authority and must dismiss the appeal. In re Marriage of Werths, 33 S.W.3d 541, 542 (Mo. banc 2000). “A judgment, order, or decree of the trial court is final and appealable only when it disposes of all the is......
  • Gash v. Lafayette County
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 19, 2008
    ...question of subject-matter jurisdiction. "In all appeals, this Court is required to examine its jurisdiction sua sponte." In re Marriage of Werths, 33 S.W.3d 541, 542 (Mo. banc 2000). This question centers on the construction of section 64.870.2. "[W]hen, as here, . . . the resolution of th......
  • Riverside-Quindaro v. Intercontinental, SC 85292.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 23, 2003
    ...The appeal is dismissed. Jurisdiction In all appeals, this Court is required to examine its jurisdiction sua sponte. In re: Marriage of Werths, 33 S.W.3d 541, 542 (Mo. banc 2000). The right to appeal is purely statutory and, where a statute does not give a right to appeal, no right exists. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT