Sassmann v. Kahle
| Decision Date | 11 January 2000 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. E.D. 2000) Carl E. Sassmann, et al., Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Marvin H. Kahle, Defendant/Appellant Case Number: ED75443 Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Handdown Date: 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Gasconade County, Hon. John C. Brackmann, Judge
Counsel for Appellant: P. Daniel Billington and Gordon Rolla Upchurch
Counsel for Respondent: P. Dennis Barks
Opinion Summary: In this court-tried case involving real property, defendant appeals from the judgment entered for plaintiffs.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
Union Division holds: The judgment entered for plaintiffs was not final for purposes of appeal and therefore this court lacks jurisdiction.
In this court-tried case involving real property, defendant, Marvin Kahle, appeals from the judgment entered for plaintiffs, Carl Sassmann, Mildred Sassmann, Denise Peth and Richard Peth. We dismiss the appeal.
Plaintiffs own real property in Gasconade County. Defendant owns property that is contiguous to plaintiffs' property. A dispute arose regarding the location of the boundary between the properties, a strip of land between the properties and a fence. Plaintiffs brought an action to quiet title, for injunctive relief and for damages. Defendant answered and brought a counterclaim for declaratory judgment, to quiet title and for ejectment.
After the trial, the court entered judgment for plaintiffs. The court found:
that such portion of the real estate described in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Plaintiffs' said Petition which lies immediately north of an established fence line has been recognized by Plaintiffs, their predecessors in title, and the predecessors in title to Defendant as the true common boundary line between the separate tracts now owned by Plaintiffs and Defendant, and that possession of said strip of real estate lying immediately north of said established fence line, and ranging between approximately 15 feet and 30 feet in width, has been under a claim of right by Plaintiffs and their predecessors in title, to the exclusion of all other persons, including Defendant; and further finds that the true boundary line between the respective tracts of real estate owned by Plaintiffs and Defendant is the fence line removed by Defendant and an extension of that line along the same compass bearing to the intersection thereof with the western boundary line of Plaintiffs' real estate as described in the deeds . . . .
The court also found that defendant removed the existing fence located on the strip of real property claimed and possessed by plaintiffs. The court further found that plaintiffs sustained damages resulting from defendant's "repeated trespasses," removal of the fence and mowing of grass and other vegetation on the property at issue. The court ordered title to the property be vested in plaintiffs such that the common boundary between the parties' properties was the "fence line" removed by defendant. The court also stated:
in order to enable a full and sufficient legal description of said boundary line, Defendant is ordered to obtain a new survey of said original fence line and the extension thereof and to file with the Court an authenticated copy of the plat of such survey, plus a typed description sufficient for use in a supplemental judgment quieting title in Plaintiffs to be filed in this cause, within 60 days after entry of this judgment. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this cause until such survey plat and description and supplemental judgment are so filed and approved by the Court.
Defendant appeals from this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore ex rel. Moore v. Bi-State Dev. Agency
...we will presume Moore paid the docket fee as he indicated. We have a duty to determine our jurisdiction sua sponte. Sassmann v. Kahle, 18 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). The timely filing of an adequate notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. Application of Holt, 518 S.W.2d 451, 4......
-
State ex rel. Anderson v. Anderson
...Due to Untimely Filing of Notice of Appeal "A reviewing court has a duty to determine its jurisdiction sua sponte." Sassmann v. Kahle, 18 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Mo. App.2000) (citing Chromalloy American Corp. v. Elyria Foundry Co., 955 S.W.2d 1, 3 (Mo. banc 1997)). "The timely filing of an adequate N......
-
Sidio v. Rice, 24831.
...884 S.W.2d 679, 684 (Mo.App.1994) (easement); Trust by Sherman v. Wilson, 928 S.W.2d 897, 898 (Mo.App.1996) (roadway); Sassmann v. Kahle, 18 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Mo.App. 2000) (location of a fence line). However, if a judgment requires external proof, such as a survey, to dispose of a disputed issu......
-
Wolff v. Wibracht
...litigation is not final for purposes of appeal." Gunter v. City of St. James, 91 S.W.3d 724, 727 (Mo.App. S.D.2002); Sassmann v. Kahle, 18 S.W.3d 1, 2 (Mo.App. E.D.2000).2 Accordingly, the trial court's judgment is not final and Respondent's motion to dismiss is granted. The appeal is dismi......