Donald Webb, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Stephanie Kidd, Defendant/Appellant.
Decision date: UnknownED83998
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- Stephanie Kidd, Defendant/
- Respondent
- Donald Webb, 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 Eastern District Case Style: Donald Webb, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Stephanie Kidd, Defendant/Appellant. Case Number: ED83998 Handdown Date: 03/02/2004 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Barbara Wallace Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Mark G. McMahon Opinion Summary: Stephanie Kidd appeals from the court's entry of a default judgment against her. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: Kidd's notice of appeal is untimely under Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 81.04(a), and her appeal must be dismissed. Citation: Opinion Author: Sherri B. Sullivan, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Mooney and Draper III, JJ., concur. Opinion: Stephanie Kidd (Appellant) appeals the default judgment for $3,500 entered against her in this personal injury lawsuit filed by Donald Webb (Respondent). Because Appellant's notice of appeal is untimely, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent filed a petition for damages for personal injuries suffered in an automobile accident with Appellant. Respondent sought $3,500 in damages. After Appellant was served, a default judgment was entered against her in the amount of $3,500 on September 2, 2003. On December 17, 2003, Appellant filed a motion to set aside the default
judgment which, to the court's knowledge, has not yet been ruled upon. Appellant then filed a notice of appeal to this Court on December 23, 2003. In response, Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, contending it is untimely. Appellant has failed to file a response. Under Rule 81.04(a), (FN1) the notice of appeal must be filed no later than ten (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 (90) days after the filing of the motion or, if such motion is passed on at an earlier date, at the later of: (1) thirty (30) days after the entry of judgment; or (2) disposition of the motion. Rule 81.05(a). Here, the court entered the default judgment against Appellant on September 2, 2003. Under Rule 81.04(a), Appellant's notice of appeal was due ten days after the judgment became final. Here, the judgment became final thirty days from September 2, 2003, or October 2, 2003, because no timely after-trial motions were filed. Rule 81.05(a). Appellant's notice of appeal was due on October 14, 2003. Rule 81.04(a); Rule 44.01(a). Therefore, Appellant' s notice of appeal, filed on December 23, 2003, was untimely. The motion to set aside the default judgment that Appellant filed on December 17, 2003 had no bearing on when the notice of appeal was due from the September 2 nd judgment. When such a motion is filed after the default judgment has become final, it is treated as an independent proceeding, separate and apart from the underlying judgment itself. Popular Leasing USA, Inc. v. Universal Art Corp. of New York , 57 S.W.3d 875, 878 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001). Appellant may proceed with this motion in the circuit court. Our jurisdiction depends on the timely filing of a notice of appeal and lacking that our only permissible action is to dismiss the appeal. Moore ex rel. Moore v. Bi-State Dev. Agency , 87 S.W.3d 279, 296 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002). We cannot review the merits of Appellant's appeal and can only dismiss her untimely appeal. We grant Respondent's motion to dismiss and dismiss Appellant's appeal. Footnotes: FN1. All rule references are to Mo. R. Civ. P. 2003, unless otherwise indicated. 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 44.01cited
Rule 44.01
- Rule 81.04cited
Rule 81.04
- Rule 81.05cited
Rule 81.05
Cases
- inc v universal art corp of new york 57 sw3d 875cited
Inc. v. Universal Art Corp. of New York , 57 S.W.3d 875
- moore ex rel moore v bi state dev agency 87 sw3d 279cited
Moore ex rel. Moore v. Bi-State Dev. Agency , 87 S.W.3d 279
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
State of Missouri ex rel. Roxie Anderson, and Department of Social Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement, Petitioners/Respondents v. Woodrow Anderson, Respondent/Appellant.(2006)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District
Kevin P. Miller, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. City of St. Louis, Defendant/Respondent.(2004)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED83791
In re the Marriage of Mary Jane Coonts and Mark Coonts. Mary Jane Coonts, Petitioner-Respondent, and Mark Coonts, Respondent-Appellant.(2006)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District
HOWARD ROBERTS, Movant-Respondent v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Appellant(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictAugust 29, 2025#SD38530
In the Interest of: P.D.E. vs. Juvenile Officer(2022)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictNovember 22, 2022#WD84899
Scott Fitzpatrick, in his official capacity as Missouri State Treasurer vs. John R. Ashcroft, in his official capacity as Missouri Secretary of State(2022)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictJanuary 13, 2022#WD85060