Walker v. Brownel, ED 97663.
| Decision Date | 28 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 97663.,ED 97663. |
| Citation | 375 S.W.3d 259 |
| Parties | Arvin WALKER, Respondent, v. Lenora BROWNEL, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
375 S.W.3d 259
Arvin WALKER, Respondent,
v.
Lenora BROWNEL, et al., Appellants.
No. ED 97663.
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division Three.
Aug. 28, 2012.
Elbert A. Walton, Jr., St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Jeffrey T. Weisman, Maryland Heights, MO, for respondent.
[375 S.W.3d 260]
ROY L. RICHTER, Judge.
Danny Brownel (“Appellant”) appeals the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Arvin Walker (“Respondent”) on his unlawful detainer action. Appellant raises four points on appeal. However, Appellant's failure to apply for a trial de novo pursuant to Section 512.180.1,1 prior to seeking relief in this Court, deprives this Court of the authority to adjudicate his claims. Appellant's claims are dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
On May 24, 2011, Respondent filed an Unlawful Detainer Petition in the Circuit of the City of St. Louis, seeking to both evict John Doe and Ms. Lenora Brownel (“Ms. Brownel”) from the property at 1430 Burd Avenue and obtain double rents in damages. The case was assigned to an associate circuit judge.
Appellant filed a Motion to Quash Service on the grounds that Ms. Brownel was deceased and the service of process was invalid because the woman who was served at the residence, Ms. Gavona Phillips (“Ms. Phillips”), did not actually reside at 1430 Burd Avenue. The trial court held a hearing on the Motion to Quash Service and heard testimony from the process server regarding the circumstances of service. The process server recalled physical details of Ms. Phillips, portions of his conversation with her at the time of service, and his recollection that Ms. Phillips was over 15 years of age at the time of service and that Ms. Phillips had indeed indicated she resided on the premises. The process server's Affidavit of Service was also introduced which provided a contemporaneous account of the aforementioned information. Appellant declined to cross-examine the process server or offer any evidence beyond an affidavit by Ms. Phillips, declaring she never resided at 1430 Burd Avenue. The trial court subsequently held that the service of process was valid and denied Appellant's Motion to Quash Service.
On August 8, 2011, Appellant filed a Suggestion of Death on behalf of Ms. Brownel; wherein Appellant included an affidavit stating Ms. Brownel had been deceased since March 10, 2008. Respondent then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against both Appellant and Ms. Brownel, while Appellant and Francel Brownel filed a Motion to Intervene and File a Separate Answer. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Ms. Brownel from the lawsuit and a hearing was held on the remaining issues on October 7, 2011.
The trial court entered its Order and Judgment on October 12, 2011, holding: (1) service of process was not an issue; (2) Appellant was the unnamed John Doe and this had been readily apparent to Appellant for several weeks prior to the hearing date; (3) Appellant's subsequent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennett v. St. Louis Cnty.
...a municipal ordinance. Although not raised by the parties, we have a duty to examine our jurisdiction sua sponte. Walker v. Brownel, 375 S.W.3d 259, 261 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). If we lack jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, we must dismiss. Id. The Missouri Supreme Court has exclusive appel......
-
Damon ex rel. Situated v. City of Kan. City
...a municipal ordinance. Although not raised by the parties, we have a duty to examine our jurisdiction sua sponte. Walker v. Brownel, 375 S.W.3d 259, 261 (Mo.App. E.D.2012). If we lack jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, we must dismiss it. Id. The Missouri Supreme Court has exclusive appel......
-
State v. Lilly
...855, 859 (Mo. banc 2008)). “If this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, the appeal must be dismissed.” Walker v. Brownel, 375 S.W.3d 259, 261 (Mo.App.E.D.2012). In this case, the State relies solely on § 547.200.1 to establish our jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal. Se......
-
Damon v. City of Kan. City
...a municipal ordinance. Although not raised by the parties, we have a duty to examine our jurisdiction sua sponte. Walker v. Brownel, 375 S.W.3d 259, 261 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012). If we lack jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, we must dismiss it. Id. The Missouri Supreme Court has exclusive app......