H.J. Gruy & Associates, Inc., Appellant, v. Big E Oil Company, et al., Respondents.
Decision date: UnknownED83977
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- H.J. Gruy & Associates, Inc.
- Respondent
- Big E Oil Company, et al.
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: H.J. Gruy & Associates, Inc., Appellant, v. Big E Oil Company, et al., Respondents. Case Number: ED83977 Handdown Date: 04/27/2004 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Nancy L. Schneider Counsel for Appellant: Randall D. Grady Counsel for Respondent: Anthony D. Linson and Party Acting Pro Se Opinion Summary: H.J. Gruy & Associates, Inc., appeals from an order dismissing its petition under the Illinois uniform fraudulent transfer act with prejudice. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: Because the order is not denominated a judgment as required by Supreme Court Rule 74.01(a), we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Citation: Opinion Author: Sherri B. Sullivan, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Mooney and Draper III, JJ., concur. Opinion: H.J. Gruy & Associates, Inc. (Appellant) filed suit against multiple defendants under the Illinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Big E Oil Company (Respondent) filed a motion to dismiss asserting that the statute of limitations had expired on Appellant's claim. The trial court granted Respondent's motion to dismiss and dismissed Appellant's petition with prejudice. Appellant appealed. Because the order dismissing Appellant's petition is not denominated a judgment as required by Rule 74.01(a),(FN1) we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Under Section 512.020, (FN2) an appeal is only allowed from a final judgment of the trial court. In a civil case, a judgment must be expressly denominated "judgment" to be appealable. Rule 74.01(a); Peet v. Randolph , 103 S.W.3d 872, 875 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). In designating the writing a "judgment," it must be clear from the writing that the trial court is calling the document or docket sheet entry a judgment. City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Mo. banc 1997). This Court must determine its jurisdiction sua sponte. Bryant v. City of University City , 105 S.W.3d 855, 856 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). If this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, it should be dismissed. Id. Here, the order dismissing Appellant's petition is not denominated a judgment. As a result, there is no final, appealable judgment. SLJ v. RJ , 101 S.W.3d 339, 340 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). We issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. Appellant has failed to file a response. In City of St. Louis v. Hughes , the Missouri Supreme Court stated that "[t]he requirement that a trial court must 'denominate' its final ruling as a 'judgment' is not a mere formality. It establishes a 'bright line' test as to when a writing is a judgment." 950 S.W.2d at 853; See also, Brooks v. Brooks , 98 S.W.3d 530, 532 (Mo. banc 2003). The order dismissing Appellant's petition must be denominated a judgment or this Court lacks jurisdiction. Jon E. Fuhrer Co. v. Gerhardt, 955 S.W.2d 212, 213 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997). We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment. Footnotes: FN1. All rule references are to Mo. R. Civ. P. 2003, unless otherwise indicated. FN2. All statutory references are to RSMo 2000, 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 74.01cited
Rule 74.01
Cases
- appellants petition must be denominated a judgment or this court lacks jurisdiction jon e fuhrer co v gerhardt 955 sw2d 212cited
Appellant's petition must be denominated a judgment or this Court lacks jurisdiction. Jon E. Fuhrer Co. v. Gerhardt, 955 S.W.2d 212
- brooks v brooks 98 sw3d 530cited
Brooks v. Brooks , 98 S.W.3d 530
- city of st louis v hughes 950 sw2d 850cited
City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850
- peet v randolph 103 sw3d 872cited
Peet v. Randolph , 103 S.W.3d 872
- slj v rj 101 sw3d 339cited
SLJ v. RJ , 101 S.W.3d 339
- this court must determine its jurisdiction sua sponte bryant v city of university city 105 sw3d 855cited
This Court must determine its jurisdiction sua sponte. Bryant v. City of University City , 105 S.W.3d 855
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
Ryan Briggs, Terrance J. Briggs, and Ardis E. Briggs, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Alan B. Orf, Defendant/Respondent.(2004)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED84458
Howard Ransom, Appellant v. Dr. Esperanza Pimentel, Respondent(2004)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED83468
Candace Kehrer, et al., Appellant v. Correctional Medical Services and Robert Capowski, Respondents.(2005)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED85256
Brian S. Williams, Respondent, v. Imperial Homes, Inc., Appellant.(2005)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED85399
Gracie Dueker, Appellant v. Marilyn Eckelkamp, Respondent.(2005)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED85257
Candace Kehrer, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Correctional Medical Services, and Robert Capowski, Defendants/Respondents.(2005)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED85256