Williams v. Williams
| Decision Date | 10 April 2001 |
| Citation | 41 S.W.3d 877 |
| Parties | (Mo.banc 2001) Phillip M. Williams, Respondent v. Jennifer A. Williams, Appellant. SC83203 0 |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Platte County, Hon. Owens Lee Hull, Jr.
Counsel for Appellant: Robert G. Neds
Counsel for Respondent: Frank S. Stewart
Opinion Summary: Phillip and Jennifer Williams sought to dissolve their marriage, and each requested the trial court determine child support. The court first entered a "judgment" omitting child support, then entered a "judgment" including it. Jennifer Williams appealed. The Court of Appeals concluded appellate opinions conflicted concerning Rule 75.01 violations and transferred the case to the Supreme Court.
Court en banc holds: Rule 75.01 does not apply. The first "judgment" was interlocutory, and not final, because it did not dispose of all issues between the parties. The trial court retained jurisdiction to enter the later judgment, which was final and timely appealed.
Stith, J., not participating.
Phillip Williams filed a petition seeking the dissolution of his marriage to Jennifer Williams. She filed a cross-petition. Each party included a request that the trial court determine child support for their only child.
The trial court entered a "Judgment Decree" on October 6, 1999. This "judgment" failed to include any order of child support. Without notice to the parties or an opportunity to be heard, the trial court entered an "Amended Judgment Decree" on October 29, 1999. The "amended judgment" included all of the material in the October 6, 1999, "judgment" and added two paragraphs concerning child support.
On November 15, 1999, Jennifer Williams filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, Western District. She raised various points on appeal, including a claim that entry of the "amended judgment" violated Rule 75.01. The court of appeals ordered the case transferred to this Court, Rule 83.02, due to its conclusion of a conflict in the appellate opinions concerning the effect of a violation of Rule 75.01. Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 10. Finding that Rule 75.01 is not applicable to the facts of this case, the cause is ordered retransferred to the Court of Appeals, Western District.
The trial judge sent a September 3, 1999, letter to counsel instructing Phillip Williams' lawyer to draw a judgment in accordance with the letter's direction. The letter specifically makes reference to child support. The October 6 "judgment" failed to include this material. Since both parties had requested a disposition of child support, the October 6, 1999, "judgment" fails to dispose of all issues between the parties and is not a final judgment. Boley v. Knowles, 905 S.W.2d 86, 88 (Mo. banc 1995). Where the "judgment" in question is not final, Rule...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.E.G. v. Juvenile Officer of Jackson Cnty.
...a qualified domestic relations order was appealable and retransferred for the court of appeals to consider the merits); Williams v. Williams , 41 S.W.3d 877, 878 (Mo. banc 2001) (retransferring to the court of appeals for a determination on the merits after the court of appeals transferred ......
-
Cupit v. Dry Basement, Inc.
...Rule 75.01 does not apply, and the trial court retains jurisdiction to enter a final judgment. Spicer , 336 S.W.3d at 469 ; Williams v. Williams , 41 S.W.3d 877, 878 (Mo. banc 2001) ; Long v. Long , 469 S.W.3d 10, 15 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015). Likewise, the time limit of Rule 78.06 does not appl......
-
Long v. Long
...Spicer, 336 S.W.3d at 469 (“Where the ‘judgment’ in question is not final, Rule 75.01 does not apply.”) (quoting Williams v. Williams, 41 S.W.3d 877, 878 (Mo. banc 2001) ).Though interlocutory when entered, the Contempt Judgment became “final and appealable” upon the occurrence of a subsequ......
-
Long v. Long
...336 S.W.3d at 469 ("Where the 'judgment' in question is not final,Page 8Rule 75.01 does not apply.") (quoting Williams v. Williams, 41 S.W.3d 877, 878 (Mo. banc 2001)). Though interlocutory when entered, the Contempt Judgment became "final and appealable" upon the occurrence of a subsequent......