Keen v. Dismuke, s. 13474
| Decision Date | 12 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 13474,13481,s. 13474 |
| Citation | 667 S.W.2d 452 |
| Parties | Glenda D. KEEN, Plaintiff-Appellant-Respondent, v. Otella G. DISMUKE, Defendant-Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Joseph P. Fuchs, Dempster, Fuchs & Barkett, Sikeston, for plaintiff-appellant-respondent.
Stephen L. Taylor, Gilmore, Gilmore, Taylor & Burns, Sikeston, for defendant-respondent-appellant.
This case involves the possession and ownership of a three-bedroom house located on residential property in Sikeston, Missouri. Plaintiff, Glenda D. Keen, is the daughter of defendant, Otella G. Dismuke. Glenda is the record title owner of the property, and Otella is in possession of it.
After serving a notice to vacate on her mother, which notice was ignored, Glenda sued Otella for possession of the premises, plus damages. Otella counterclaimed, asserting fee simple ownership in the real estate, described in the pleadings as "All of Lot No. Thirteen (13), Block No. Four (4), of Prairie Addition to the City of Sikeston, Scott County, Missouri", by reason of an oral conveyance, and requested that the trial court "quiet title to the above-described premises in Defendant ...."
After hearing evidence, the trial court entered the following order:
In their appeals, consolidated here, both parties assert the purported judgment is erroneous because neither party pleaded, proved, or requested the award of a life estate interest. We concur with such assertion, as the powers of the trial court are limited to the claims for relief and issues made by the pleadings, and a judgment or order not so limited is void. Stickle v. Link, 511 S.W.2d 848, 856 (Mo.1974).
We further observe that the trial court's order, although affecting the title to real estate, does not describe the real estate, and further observe that the order is conditional on acts to be performed in the future, i.e., the payment of unspecified sums by Otella to some unspecified person for some unspecified length of time.
In ejectment and quiet title actions, judgments...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. Medlock
...court are limited to the claims for relief and issues made by the pleadings, and a judgment not so limited is void. Keen v. Dismuke, 667 S.W.2d 452, 453 (Mo.App.1984). Hughes v. Wagner, 303 S.W.2d 181 (Mo.App.1957) illustrates this principle. In Hughes, a father filed a motion to modify a d......
-
State ex rel. L.L.B. v. Eiffert, 16192-2
...is contrary to established rules of practice and procedure and is void. Michael v. Michael, 727 S.W.2d 424 (Mo.App.1987); Keen v. Dismuke, 667 S.W.2d 452 (Mo.App.1984); Carl v. Carl, supra; Shepler v. Shepler, supra; In re Lipschitz, supra. Prohibition is the proper remedy to bar recognitio......
-
Associated Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. City of Springfield, s. 16423
...are correct that the judgment of the trial court is limited by the claims for relief and issues in the pleadings. See Keen v. Dismuke, 667 S.W.2d 452, 453 (Mo.App.1984), Carlton v. Wilson, 618 S.W.2d 731, 732 (Mo.App.1981). However, that did not occur In plaintiffs' petition they alleged th......
-
Anderson v. Howald
...the real estate affected by the decree. First State Savings Bank v. Peters, 797 S.W.2d 574, 575 (Mo.App.1990); Keen v. Dismuke, 667 S.W.2d 452, 453 (Mo.App.1984). This defect will be corrected on Subpoint (b) is not supported by the record on appeal. Although plaintiff's brief states that p......