Nimmo v. Nimmo
| Decision Date | 05 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 11899,11899 |
| Citation | 616 S.W.2d 131 |
| Parties | Joe Bill NIMMO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ruth Ann NIMMO, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
James R. Fossard, Springfield, for petitioner-appellant.
Charles LeCompte, Springfield, for respondent.
This appeal evolved from a legal history almost incapable of description. Basically, what we have here is a judgment-creditor in one suit (respondent) executing on the debtor's (petitioner) favorable judgment against a third party in a second suit.
The underlying case was for dissolution of marriage wherein a 1978 decree gave the wife (respondent) a judgment for "alimony in gross" in the sum of $3,060, but made satisfaction of that judgment dependent upon, and restricted to, the sale of certain real estate in which the petitioner-husband had an equitable interest under a contract for deed. The legal owners of the property then joined with respondent in a quiet title suit against petitioner. He counterclaimed against the legal owners for breach of contract, and received a judgment against the legal owners for breach of contract in the sum of $3,981.36.
Respondent then filed a motion to authorize execution of her judgment against the amount awarded petitioner on his counterclaim in the second suit. After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court, on May 27, 1980, wrote the parties a letter, which reads as follows:
"Gentlemen:
Re: Joe Bill Nimmo v. Ruth Ann Nimmo
I regret the delay that has occurred in making a decision in this case, but it was due to the fact that I had several cases to decide, and also I went on a week's vacation.
I have reviewed this case several times, and while we recognize the brief filed on behalf of the petitioner is well considered, we are of the opinion that to accept the petitioner's position would be to divert the intention of the court in rendering its decree. Judge Bacon found that the respondent should have a judgment for alimony in gross in the amount of $3,060. It was then necessary for the court to find the means by which petitioner could satisfy the judgment, and the logical place would be the sale of the residence located at 2622 North Howard, Springfield, Missouri. The fact that that property was not in fact sold but rather that the petitioner was reimbursed for monies paid on the contract, does not excuse him from satisfying the alimony judgment from these proceeds.
In consequence, we will request that Mr. LeCompte, attorney for movant, prepare appropriate orders for the court so as to permit movant to obtain satisfaction of her judgment in the amount of $3,060, for alimony, the payment of attorney fees which have been unpaid, and also any delinquent child support payments.
Yours very truly,
Jack A. Powell
Respondent's attorney did not prepare any order for the court to sign which would constitute the basis for an appeal. The only docket entry germane to this issue is dated May 27, 1980, and reads, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Dougan, WD
...derived, the parties will remain in exactly the same position. The court has not spoken the "last word" on the subject. Nimmo v. Nimmo, 616 S.W.2d 131, 133 (Mo.App.1981); 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 21 (1947). The order is not "fixed and certain in its terms". In re Marriage of Michalski, 542 S.W......
-
Shawnee Bend Special Road Dist. D v. Camden County Com'n
...questioned the jurisdiction of this court. Nevertheless, it is the duty of this court to determine that issue sua sponte. Nimmo v. Nimmo, 616 S.W.2d 131 (Mo.App.1981). The right of appeal is purely statutory. Lederer v. State, Dept. of Social Serv., 825 S.W.2d 858 (Mo.App.1992). The applica......
-
Crockett v. Polen, No. WD 65445 (Mo. App. 10/31/2006)
...order exception and is in general appealable. Carrow v. Carrow, 294 S.W.2d 595, 597 (Mo. App. 1956). See also Nimmo v. Nimmo, 616 S.W.2d 131, 133 (Mo. App. S.D. 1981) ("order authorizing execution, like an order quashing execution, is a special order after final judgment and, as such, is ap......
-
Hamilton v. Hamilton
...parties. The issue, however, goes to this court's jurisdiction and we therefore have a duty to examine it sua sponte. Nimmo v. Nimmo, 616 S.W.2d 131, 133 (Mo.App.1981). In order for an appeal to lie, there must be a final judgment or order. § 512.020, RSMo (1978); Adams v. Adams, 294 S.W.2d......