CKH Association, Inc., Plaintiff/Respondent v. Richard Mistler, Defendant/Appellant.
Decision date: Unknown
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Richard Mistler, Defendant/
- Respondent
- CKH Association, Inc., Plaintiff/
Disposition
Dismissed
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 Southern District Case Style: CKH Association, Inc., Plaintiff/Respondent v. Richard Mistler, Defendant/Appellant. Case Number: 28105 Handdown Date: 08/16/2007 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Crawford County, Hon. William C. Seay Counsel for Appellant: Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Stephen K. Paulus Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: John E. Parrish, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Rahmeyer, P.J., and Scott, J., concur Opinion: Richard Mistler (defendant) appeals a judgment that declared that CKH Association, Inc., (plaintiff) owned a certain strip of real estate, forty feet wide, situate in Crawford County, Missouri. The trial court found that defendant "has no interest in said property as same was excepted from the deed by which Defendant . . . acquired title to the adjacent property." Regrettably, however, the judgment was not a final judgment in that it did not dispose of all issues that were before the trial court. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.(FN1) Count I of the Amended Petition sought "an injunction prohibiting Defendant from interfering, posting signs upon, prohibiting, or otherwise limited [sic] plaintiff's use" of certain premises. Count II sought determination that plaintiff owned the fee simple absolute title to real property described therein. The judgment sought to be appealed addressed only the claim asserted in Count II. It did not address Count I, nor did it declare there was no just reason for delay in entering
judgment. This court has a duty to sua sponte determine whether it has jurisdiction. Fischer v. City of Washington, 55 S.W.3d 372, 377 (Mo.App.E.D. 2001). If we lack jurisdiction to entertain an appeal it should be dismissed. Id. An appellate court has jurisdiction only over final judgments that dispose of all parties and issues in the case and leave nothing for future determination. O'Neill v. O'Neill, 864 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Mo.App.E.D. 1993). If the trial court does not either resolve all the issues as to all parties or expressly designate "there is no just reason for delay," the appeal must be dismissed. Rule 74.01(b); Fleahman v. Fleahman, 25 S.W.3d 162, 164 (Mo.App.E.D. 1999). Gateway Directory Publishing Group, Inc. v. Fischer, 84 S.W.3d 496, 497 (Mo.App. 2002). See also Whitehorn v. City of Poplar Bluff, 208 S.W.3d 930, 931 (Mo.App. 2006). The appeal is dismissed. Footnotes: FN1.Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for noncompliance with Rule 84.04(c). The motion was taken with the case. In view of the disposition of the appeal, the motion is moot. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rules
- Rule 74.01cited
Rule 74.01
- Rule 84.04cited
Rule 84.04
Cases
- fleahman v fleahman 25 sw3d 162cited
Fleahman v. Fleahman, 25 S.W.3d 162
- inc v fischer 84 sw3d 496cited
Inc. v. Fischer, 84 S.W.3d 496
- oneill v oneill 864 sw2d 7cited
O'Neill v. O'Neill, 864 S.W.2d 7
- see also whitehorn v city of poplar bluff 208 sw3d 930cited
See also Whitehorn v. City of Poplar Bluff, 208 S.W.3d 930
- this court has a duty to sua sponte determine whether it has jurisdiction fischer v city of washington 55 sw3d 372cited
This court has a duty to sua sponte determine whether it has jurisdiction. Fischer v. City of Washington, 55 S.W.3d 372
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
In The Interest of C.M.L., A Minor, J.M., Appellant v. Greene County Juvenile Office, Respondent(2005)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District
Eric Whitehorn, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of Poplar Bluff, Missouri, Poplar Bluff Police Department, and Danny Whiteley, Defendants-Respondents.(2006)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District
Gateway Directory Publishing Group, Inc., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Richard Fischer d/b/a The Elan Company, Defendant/Appellant, v. Gateway Directories, Inc., Gregg Rigg, Jason Jones, and James R. Rigg, Third-Party Defendants/Respondents.(2002)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED81517
BV Capital, LLC, Plaintiff/Respondent, vs. Larry Hughes, Defendant/Appellant, and Third Street Investors, LLC, et. al, Defendants.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictJuly 29, 2014#ED101185
Lumber Mutual Insurance Company, Plaintiff/Appellant v. Reload, Inc., and American Lumber Co., Defendants/Respondents.(2003)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED83113
Darrell Davis, Special Commissioner, Third Party Petitioner/Respondent, v. Victoria Howe, Walter Howe, and Bernard Terbrock, Defendants/Respondents, and Ronald Howe and Mary Howe, Defendants/Appellants.(2004)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED84715