State ex rel. M.A.F. by Bone v. Shelton, 61056

Decision Date19 May 1992
Docket NumberNo. 61056,61056
Citation832 S.W.2d 4
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
PartiesSTATE of Missouri, ex rel., M.A.F. by next friend Connie Sue BONE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Edward SHELTON, Defendant-Respondent.

Richard Goldstein, Cape Girardeau, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Floyd T. Norrick, Thurman, Howald, Weber, Bowles & Senkel, Hillsboro, for defendant-respondent.

CRANDALL, Judge.

Plaintiffs, State ex rel. Division of Family Services, and M.A.F., by next friend, Connie Sue Bone, appeal from the order of the trial court dismissing with prejudice a petition for declaration of paternity and order of support filed against defendant, Edward Shelton, the putative father. We reverse and remand.

The record reveals that on October 19, 1987, the State of Kansas brought an action in Washington County, Missouri, under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Law (Uniform Support Law). The purpose of the Uniform Support Law is to "improve and extend by reciprocal legislation the enforcement of duties of support and to make uniform the law with respect thereto." § 454.010, RSMo (1986). The Kansas petition in which M.A.F.'s mother, Connie Sue Bone, was the named plaintiff, sought, inter alia, the establishment of paternity. Defendant filed an answer denying paternity. On March 13, 1989, the prosecuting attorney of Washington County, Missouri, voluntarily dismissed the petition with prejudice, with costs charged to Kansas. On August 29, 1989, the Missouri Division of Family Services filed a motion to set aside the dismissal. That motion was denied on September 11, 1989 and was not appealed.

Thereafter, on September 27, 1989, a petition was filed against defendant in Missouri under the Uniform Parentage Act. See §§ 210.817 to 210.852, RSMo (Cum.Supp.1991). The named plaintiffs were M.A.F., a minor child by next friend, Connie Sue Bone; Connie Sue Bone, individually; and State ex rel Division of Family Services. See § 210.830. The petition sought an order establishing paternity and expenses associated with the birth and maintenance of M.A.F. as well as payments made by Missouri for the support of M.A.F. In January 1990, defendant filed a motion to dismiss, claiming as his sole ground that the prior dismissal with prejudice barred the present action by reason of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. On October 3, 1991, the trial court granted that motion. Thereafter, this appeal was filed. 1

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly granted defendant's motion on the basis of the res judicata or the collateral estoppel effect of the prior Kansas action. Res judicata (claim preclusion) precludes the same parties or those in privity from relitigating the same cause of action, whereas collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) precludes the same parties or those in privity from relitigating issues which have been litigated previously. Oates v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 583 S.W.2d 713, 719 (Mo. banc 1979). The common feature between the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel is that there must be a final judgment rendered upon the merits. Barkley v. Carter County State Bank, 791 S.W.2d 906, 910 (Mo.App.1990) (citing Schmitt v. Pierce, 379 S.W.2d 548 (Mo.1964)); Peoples-Home Life Ins. Co. v. Haake, 604 S.W.2d 1, 8 (Mo.App.1980).

Defendant argues that the dismissal with prejudice of the prior action was an adjudication upon the merits. Rule 67.03 provides that a dismissal with prejudice bars the assertion of the same cause of action against the same party. A dismissal with prejudice, however, serves only as a mechanism for the termination of litigation, rather than an adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. Denny v. Mathieu, 452 S.W.2d 114, 118 (Mo. banc ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Jessica G. v. Hector M.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1994
    ... ... Baldwin, and an Assistant State's Attorney, who was "representing" Joyce. 1 ... to litigate the issue"); State ex rel. DHS v. Benjamin, 183 W.Va. 220, 395 S.E.2d 220, ... For example, in State ex rel. M.A.F. By Bone v. Shelton, 832 S.W.2d 4 (Mo.Ct.App.1992), the ... ...
  • AgriBank FCB v. Cross Timbers Ranch, Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • March 21, 1996
    ...same parties or those in privity from relitigating issues which have been litigated previously. State ex rel. M.A.F. by Bone v. Shelton, 832 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Mo.App.1992). Except for certain exceptions, discussed infra the rules of res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to decisions of the ......
  • State ex rel. Gardner v. Carmody
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 1, 2020
  • Dodson v. City of Wentzville
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 27, 2004
    ...and those in privity with them, from relitigating issues that have been previously litigated. State ex rel. M.A.F. by Bone v. Shelton, 832 S.W.2d 4, 6 (Mo.App.1992). Both res judicata and collateral estoppel can be applied only if a final judgment on the merits has been rendered involving t......
  • 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