Annette Hatcher, Appellant, v. John Colin Hatcher, Respondent.
Decision date: January 21, 2003ED82445
Slip Opinion Notice
This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.
Opinion
This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: Annette Hatcher, Appellant, v. John Colin Hatcher, Respondent. Case Number: ED82445 Handdown Date: 04/08/2003 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Franklin County, Hon. John B. Berkemeyer Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Sidney A. Thayer, Jr. Opinion Summary: Annette Hatcher appeals from the judgment granting her ex-husband, John Hatcher's, motion for summary judgment and denying her motion to modify the decree of dissolution. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: The appeal is untimely because it was not filed within 10 days after the judgment became final and this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Citation: Opinion Author: Lawrence E. Mooney, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Crahan and R. Dowd, Jr., JJ., concur. Opinion: Annette Hatcher appeals from a summary judgment entered on September 20, 2002. Because the appellant's appeal is untimely, we dismiss the appeal. The appellant filed a motion to modify her decree of dissolution from the respondent, John Hatcher. On September 20, 2002, the circuit court granted the respondent's motion for summary judgment and denied the appellant's motion to modify. On October 9, 2002, the appellant filed her first notice of appeal from the summary judgment. This Court gave the
appeal cause No. ED81940. When the appellant failed to file the record on appeal as required by Rule 81.12(d) and Rule 81.18, this Court dismissed the appeal on December 12, 2002. The case was finally mandated on January 17, 2003. On January 21, 2003, the appellant filed a second notice of appeal, which is virtually identical to her prior notice of appeal. The respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The respondent contends that the appeal is untimely and further, that this is the appellant's second appeal from the same judgment. We agree that this second notice of appeal is untimely. Under Rule 81.04(a), the notice of appeal must be filed no later than 10 days after the judgment becomes final. If a party timely files an authorized after-trial motion, the judgment becomes final at the expiration of ninety days after the filing of the motion or, if such motion is passed on at an earlier date, at the later of: (1) thirty days after the entry of judgment; or (2) disposition of the motion. Rule 81.05(a)(2). If no after- trial motion is filed, the judgment becomes final thirty days after entry of the judgment. Rule 81.05(a)(1). Here, the judgment was entered on September 20, 2002. The appellant did not file an after-trial motion, so the judgment was final on Monday, October 21, 2002. Rule 81.05(a)(1); Rule 44.01(a). Her appeal was due on October 31,
- Rule 81.04(a). Therefore, her second notice of appeal, filed January 21, 2003, is untimely.
We grant the respondent's motion to dismiss and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
Ronald Wuebbeling, Respondent, vs. Jill Clark, f/k/a Jill Wuebbeling, Appellant.(2016)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictAugust 9, 2106#ED103501
L.J.F. vs. J.F.G.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 10, 2026#WD87987
The court affirmed the circuit court's renewal of a full order of protection against Father, which was made effective for his lifetime. The order prohibits Father from communicating with or coming within 100 feet of Mother, except for communications concerning their shared child, based on findings that Father engaged in stalking, harassment, and coercion that posed a serious danger to Mother's physical or mental health.
In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble vs. Bradford R. Noble(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#WD87485
Wife appealed the trial court's dissolution judgment, challenging the court's failure to provide a remedy after independent investigation of facts, the use of normalized income to determine husband's maintenance obligation, and the finding that husband lacked ability to pay maintenance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects.
In re the matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., minors; Alicia Smith, Respondent, vs. Lora Martinez, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101121
The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of third-party visitation to Smith under section 452.375.5(5)(a), holding that this statute does not create an independent cause of action for third-party visitation when custody is not at issue. The court determined that Smith lacked standing to seek visitation rights after Martinez was granted full parental rights through adoption.
M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 10, 2026#ED113141
The court affirmed the circuit court's child custody and support judgment, rejecting Father's six points of error regarding the Form 14 calculations, denial of Line 11 credit despite equal visitation time, disproportionate attorney's and GAL fees, and exclusion of testimony on equitable abatement. The appellate court found that Father failed to meet the required analytical standards for challenging the judgment and that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the Line 11 credit and ruling against equitable abatement.