Lowery v. Air Support Intern., Inc., 22026
| Decision Date | 22 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 22026,22026 |
| Citation | 971 S.W.2d 323 |
| Parties | Katharyn LOWERY, Appellant, v. AIR SUPPORT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Missouri corporation, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Mark E. Fitzsimmons, Fitzsimmons & Banning, L.L.C., Springfield, for appellant.
Cynthia R. Black, Marshfield, for respondent.
Plaintiff, Katharyn Lowery, filed a petition for "Breach of Contract."
Defendant, Air Support International, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss.
According to the record before us, the next significant event occurred December 9, 1997. A typewritten entry on the trial court's "docket sheet" that date reads:
In addition to the docket entry, the record contains a one-page document that appears to be a facsimile transmission from the trial court to the circuit clerk. The document is dated December 9, 1997, and stamped "filed" by the clerk December 10, 1997. It is signed by the trial court and reads:
"Please show the following docket entry for me in this case 'Motion to Dismiss Sustained.' "
The next activity in the case was the filing of a notice of appeal by Plaintiff.
Rule 74.01(a), Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure (1997), the version in effect December 9-10, 1997, provides that a judgment is entered when: (1) a writing, (2) signed by the judge, (3) denominated "judgment" (4) is filed. Brooks v. Director of Revenue, 954 S.W.2d 715, 716 (Mo.App. S.D.1997).
The docket entry in the instant case fails to satisfy requirements 2 1 and 3. The facsimile transmission in the instant case fails to satisfy requirement 3.
Where, as here, a trial court undertakes to dismiss a petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the court's order must meet the requirements of Rule 74.01(a) for a judgment. Chambers v. Easter Fence Co., Inc., 943 S.W.2d 863, 865-66 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). Inasmuch as neither the docket entry nor the facsimile transmission in the instant case meets those requirements, neither is appealable. Ball v. Shannon, 964 S.W.2d 858, 859 (Mo.App. S.D.1998). Consequently, this court lacks appellate jurisdiction and must dismiss this appeal. Id.
Appeal dismissed.
1 In Kessinger v. Kessinger, 935 S.W.2d 347, 349 (Mo.App. S.D.1996), this court held the judge's handwritten initials at the end of a docket entry satisfied requirement 2. However, the initials "TBS" at the end of the docket entry in the instant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowery v. Air Support Intern., Inc.
...to comply with Rule 74.01(a) requirements relating to how a judgment should be designated on a docket sheet. Lowery v. Air Support International, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 323 (Mo.App.1998).4 We make no comment on the validity of this contract nor the merits of any reformation attempt.5 A preemption......
-
Chastain v. Geary
...A docket entry denominated as a judgment but not signed by the judge also is not sufficient. See, e.g. , Lowery v. Air Support Int'l, Inc. , 971 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Mo. App. S.D. 1998) (holding that docket entry with typewritten initials of judge did not satisfy the requirement that the writin......
-
Jones v. Kennedy
...when it is (1) a writing, (2) signed by the judge, (3) that is denominated as a judgment, and (4) filed. Lowery v. Air Support Int'l, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Mo.App.1998). A docket entry may be considered a final judgment, but it must be clear from the writing in the entry that it is a j......
-
J. W. P., In re, 22382
...by the judge 3 is not a final judgment within the meaning of Rule 74.01(a) and is thus unappealable. Lowery v. Air Support International, Inc., 971 S.W.2d 323, 324 (Mo.App. S.D.1998); In re Marriage of Hoy, 961 S.W.2d 128, 128-29 (Mo.App. S.D.1998). Accordingly, if Rule 74.01(a) applies to ......