R. L. P., In Interest of

Citation536 S.W.2d 41
Decision Date02 April 1976
Docket NumberNos. 9963 and 9968,s. 9963 and 9968
PartiesIn the Interest of R.L.P.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)

Wm. G. McCaffree, Nevada, for respondent.

Robert L. Payne, Greenfield, for appellant.

Before BILLINGS, C.J., and TITUS and FLANIGAN, JJ.

TITUS, Judge.

Through two separate petitions (§ 211.091), 1 the juvenile officer averred the subject juvenile was in need of care and treatment because he had violated certain state laws. § 211.031(1)(d). After evidentiary hearings wherein the juvenile was represented by counsel (§ 211.211), the court rendered final judgment and made findings, inter alia, that the juvenile had violated the two specified statutes. He was committed to the state training school for an indeterminate period to end no later than when he attained the age of 21 years. 2 Two appeals were filed which we have consolidated for consideration.

To begin with, we have motions to dismiss the appeals upon assertions that the court lacks appellate jurisdiction. This court is always obliged, sua sponte, to test its jurisdiction on more facets than suggested by the motions and we proceed so to do. E. W. v. K. D. M., 479 S.W.2d 167, 169 (Mo.App.1972).

It is not amiss to note again that delinquency proceedings under Ch. 211 are civil suits, not criminal actions (State v. Wright, 515 S.W.2d 421, 437 (Mo. banc 1974); §§ 211.011 and 211.271), and that procedure customary in equity proceedings 'shall govern all proceedings in the juvenile court.' § 211.171--6. Therefore, since Rule 41.01(a) specifies that the Rules of Civil Procedure 'shall govern all civil actions in . . . the circuit courts' and as § 211.021(3) defines 'juvenile court' to mean 'the circuit court,' it follows that the Rules of Civil Procedure control juvenile court proceedings unless provided otherwise by statute. State ex rel. R. L. W. v. Billings, 451 S.W.2d 125, 126--128(1, 2, 5) (Mo. banc 1970).

In testing our appellate jurisdiction, we initially inquire if the notices of appeal were filed, as they must be, 'within thirty days after the final judgment . . . has been entered.' § 211.261. If they were not, we have no jurisdiction of either case. In Interest of R_ _, 362 S.W.2d 642, 644(4) (Mo.App.1962).

The final judgment encompassing both proceedings was entered January 17, 1975. Seventeen days later, on February 3, motions for new trial (as so denominated by the juvenile court) were filed, argued and overruled. Although Rule 78.04 requires such motions to be filed not later than 15 days after judgment entry, Rule 44.01(a) provides that in computing any period of time neither a Saturday nor a Sunday should be counted if the last day of the period falls thereon, 'in which event the period runs until the end of the next day which is neither a Saturday (nor a) Sunday.' The fifteenth day after judgment entry was Saturday, February 1, and, of course, the day following (February 2) was a Sunday. Consequently, filing the motions on Monday, February 3 was timely. The finality of a judgment in a juvenile case is postponed by the timely filing of a motion for new trial. In re In Interest of T_ _ G_ _ 455 S.W.2d 3, 9(8) (Mo.App.1970). It follows, therefore, that since the judgment of January 17, 1975, did not become final until the rulings of the court on the motions for new trial on February 3, appellant then had thirty days after February 3 under § 211.261 within which to file notices of appeal. He timely filed the notices seventeen days thereafter on February 20.

Each notice of appeal was signed by the juvenile's attorney and read: 'Notice is given that (the juvenile) appeals from the Judgment Overruling Motion . . . entered in this action on the 3rd day of February, 1975.' While § 211.261 states 'An appeal shall be allowed to the child from any final judgment . . . and may be taken on the part of the child by its parent, guardian, legal custodian, spouse, relative or next friend,' similar language in predecessor statutes has been interpreted as meaning that appeals in juvenile cases on behalf of the child should be by one of those named in the last part of the quote. In re C_ _, 314 S.W.2d 756, 759(4) (Mo.App.1958); State ex rel. Killoran v. Calhoun, 201 Mo.App. 374, 379, 211 S.W. 109, 110 (1919). And, as suggested in the motions to dismiss, the appeals should have been taken from the January 17 judgment, not from the February 3 orders overruling the motions for new trial which are nonappealable. World Franchisers, Inc. v. Birk, 456 S.W.2d 606, 607(1, 2) (Mo.App.1970). Nevertheless, as was done under almost exactly the same circumstances in In re C_ _, supra, 314 S.W.2d at 759--760(7), and has since been done repeatedly, we consider and accept the notices of appeal herein as bona fide or good faith attempts to comply with the rules and statutes. Matter of Estate of Langford, 529 S.W.2d 31, 32 (Mo.App.1975); Dors v. Wulff, 522 S.W.2d 325, 326(1) (Mo.App.1975).

Having found that the notices of appeal were timely filed and acceptable, though imperfect, we conclude that we do have appellate jurisdiction in both cases and thus overrule the motions to dismiss.

It does not follow, however, that because this court has appellate jurisdiction, that such jurisdiction need be exercised to decide these appeals on their merits. 'Courts...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • J.L.H., In Interest of, WD
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 11, 1983
    ...thus vesting this court with jurisdiction. In Re C------, 314 S.W.2d 756, 759 (Mo.App.1958). See also In Interest of R.L.P., 536 S.W.2d 41, 43 (Mo.App.1976); Ozark Border Elec. Co-op v. Stacy, 348 S.W.2d 586, 591-92 (Mo.App.1961). The admonition of In Re C------, supra, at 760 to comply wit......
  • Kipper v. Vokolek, 10057
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 13, 1977
    ...to plaintiff a good faith effort to appeal from the judgment, the notice of appeal will be so treated. In Interest of R.L.P., 536 S.W.2d 41, 43(7) (Mo.App.1976); World Franchisers, Inc. v. Birk, 456 S.W.2d 606, 607(2) Our initial concern is with defendant Dorothy Vokolek's motion to supplem......
  • T. P. S., In Interest of, 11349
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • January 2, 1980
    ...that the Rules of Civil Procedure control juvenile court proceedings unless otherwise provided by statute. In Interest of R. L. P., 536 S.W.2d 41, 43 (Mo.App.1976). Also see State ex rel. R. L. W. v. Billings, 451 S.W.2d 125 (Mo. banc 1970). The Rules of Civil Procedure have been held not t......
  • In re D.R.C., ED 107246
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • September 17, 2019
    ...of determining whether or not the relief asked for ... could have been granted but for changed conditions." In Interest of R.L.P. , 536 S.W.2d 41, 43 (Mo. App. 1976). "Even a case vital at inception of the appeal may be mooted by an intervening event which so alters the position of the part......
  • 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