Elaine Sturgeon, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Charles Sturgeon, Appellant.
Decision date: November 14, 1996
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: Elaine Sturgeon, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Charles Sturgeon, Appellant. Case Number: 72855 Handdown Date: 09/22/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Victoria McKee Counsel for Appellant: Charles Sturgeon, Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Frank Susman and Norton Beilenson Opinion Summary: Husband appeals from four orders, each denominated "Judgment," entered on June 6, 1997 by Family Court Commissioner Victoria McKee. The orders (1) denied husband's motion for attorney fees on appeal, (2) denied husband's motion for a new trial "as to issues on motion to modify," (3) amended the findings of the decree of dissolution and (4) denied husband's motion to amend a contempt order entered November 14, 1996. DISMISSED. Division One holds: The appeal must be dismissed because the order, even though denominated "judgment," was not signed by a judge and was therefore not appealable. Citation: Opinion Author: Clifford H. Ahrens, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Pudlowski, P.J., and Crandall Jr. J., concur. Opinion: Husband appeals from four orders, each denominated "Judgment," entered on June 6, 1997 by Family Court Commissioner Victoria McKee. The orders (1) denied husband's motion for attorney fees on appeal, (2) denied husband's motion for a new trial "as to issues on motion to modify," (3) amended the findings of the decree of dissolution and (4)
denied husband's motion to amend a contempt order entered November 14, 1996. Husband filed a pro se notice of appeal on July 15, 1997. The Minutes of Proceedings reflect that the orders have not been signed by any person other than Commissioner McKee. We dismiss the appeal. As a point of reference, we recognize that a party may appeal from any final judgment. See Rule 81.01; section 512.020, RSMo 1994. Rule 74.01(a) provides that: "Judgment" as used in these rules includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies. A judgment is rendered when entered. A judgment is entered when a writing signed by the judge and denominated "judgment" or "decree" is filed. A judgment may be a separate document or included on the docket sheet of the case. Under this rule, a judgment must be (1) in writing, (2) signed by the judge, (3) denominated "judgment" and (4) filed. Chambers v. Easter Fence Co., Inc., 943 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Mo. App. 1997). As the Missouri Supreme Court recently stated: [a]lthough the documents filed in [this] case[] are denominated "judgment," they are not signed by a judge. Because the documents are not signed by a person selected for office in accordance with and authorized to exercise judicial power by article V of the state constitution, no final and appealable judgment has been entered . . . . Slay v. Slay, Nos. 80405 to 80407, 1998 WL 130815 at **1 (Mo. banc March 24, 1998). Commissioner McKee was not selected for office in accordance with article V of the Missouri Constitution, therefore this court is without jurisdiction to hear husband's appeal. Id.; Sturgeon v. Sturgeon, No. 72478 slip op. at 2 (Mo. App. 1998). The appeal is dismissed for lack of appellate 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.