In the Interest of Prough
| Decision Date | 07 December 1999 |
| Citation | 8 S.W.3d 186 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. W.D. 1999) In the Interest of Corey Joe Prough. WD56880 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Vernon County, Hon. Gerald D. McBeth
Counsel for Respondent: James Lee Guthrie, Jr.
Opinion Summary: Brad and Janet Scott appeal the circuit court's dismissal of their petition for transfer of custody and adoption of Corey Prough with prejudice.
Division holds: Because the circuit court's order was not a judgment under Rule 74.01(a), this Court lacks jurisdiction and dismisses the Scotts' appeal.
Brad and Janet Scott appeal the circuit court's dismissal of their petition for transfer of custody and adoption of Corey Prough with prejudice. Because the circuit court's dismissal did not satisfy Rule 74.01(a), we dismiss the appeal.
When Corey Prough's biological mother was killed in an automobile accident, his biological father, Brad Scott, filed a writ of habeas corpus action in Vernon County circuit court seeking custody of Corey. The court granted to Roger and Carol Prough, relatives of the deceased mother, full custody of the boy and granted Brad Scott visitation rights.1
On November 18, 1996, Brad and Janet Scott filed a petition for transfer of custody and adoption of Corey in St. Clair County's circuit court. The Proughs filed a motion to dismiss the action. Instead of ruling on the motion to dismiss, the St. Clair County circuit court ordered that the petition for transfer of custody and adoption be transferred to Vernon County.
On December 21, 1998, the Scotts voluntarily dismissed their petition for transfer of custody and adoption pending in Vernon County. The Proughs renewed their motion to dismiss and requested that the dismissal be with prejudice. After a hearing, the circuit court made this entry on January 29, 1999, on its docket sheet, 2 Following the docket entry were the judge's handwritten initials. The Scotts filed notice of appeal with this court on February 22, 1999.
On March 30, 1999, this court sent both parties a letter which said:
The record on appeal reflects an appeal from a docket entry entered on January 29, 1999. The docket entry is not denominated "judgment" as required by Rule 74.01(a) and therefore it appears this Court is without appellate jurisdiction. City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850 (Mo. banc 1997).
If Appellant does not file a supplemental legal file containing a document denominated "judgment" by April 12, 1999, this case will be presented to the Court for entry of an order dismissing the appeal for lack of an appealable judgment.In response to this letter, the Scotts filed a document entitled, "Notice of Entry, Order or Judgment by Court." The document contained the docket entry and was signed by a deputy clerk of Vernon County. The document, however, did not contain the circuit court judge's signature or handwritten initials.
Rule 74.01(a) says:
"Judgment" as used in these rules includes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cone v. Kolesiak, WD 81741
...367 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) ; Temares v. LSK Lebanon, Inc. , 342 S.W.3d 331, 333 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) ; In re Prough , 8 S.W.3d 186, 187 (Mo. App. W.D. 1999) ; Kessinger v. Kessinger , 935 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996) ). "If a judge’s typewritten name appears beneath th......
-
Kearns v. N.Y. Cmty. Bank
...Butler, 367 S.W.3d 179, 181 (Mo.App. W.D.2012); Temares v. LSK Lebanon, Inc., 342 S.W.3d 331, 333 (Mo.App. S.D.2011); In re Prough, 8 S.W.3d 186, 187 (Mo.App. W.D.1999); Kessinger v. Kessinger, 935 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Mo.App. S.D.1996). If a judge's typewritten name appears beneath the docket ......
-
Butler ex rel. Roller v. Butler, WD 74185.
...“signing” to satisfy Rule 74.01(a). See Temares v. LSK Lebanon, Inc., 342 S.W.3d 331, 333 (Mo.App. S.D.2011); In re Prough, 8 S.W.3d 186, 187 (Mo.App. W.D.1999); Kessinger v. Kessinger, 935 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Mo.App. S.D.1996); In re Marriage of Berger, 931 S.W.2d 216, 217 (Mo.App. S.D.1996).......
-
Logan v. Sho-Me Power Electric Co-Op., 24847.
...judge; consequently, this cannot satisfy the requirements of Rule 74.01(a), although it is denominated a judgment. In the Interest of Prough, 8 S.W.3d 186, 187 (Mo.App.1999); In re J.W.P., 986 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Mo.App.1999). The February 19, 2002, docket entry was signed by the trial judge, ......