OTT LAW

In Re the Marriage of: JILL D. GOODLOE and STEVEN R. GOODLOE, JILL D. GOODLOE, Petitioner-Respondent, v. STEVEN R. GOODLOE, Respondent-Appellant.

Decision date: UnknownSD33599

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

In Re the Marriage of: ) JILL D. GOODLOE and ) STEVEN R. GOODLOE, ) ) JILL D. GOODLOE, ) ) No. SD33599 Petitioner-Respondent, ) Filed: 8-26-15 ) v. ) ) STEVEN R. GOODLOE, ) ) Respondent-Appellant. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAMDEN COUNTY Honorable Aaron G. Koeppen, Associate Circuit Judge APPEAL DISMISSED

Steven Goodloe (Husband) filed a notice of appeal from the judgment that dissolved his marriage to Jill Goodloe (Wife). Husband's first point on appeal contends the judgment is not final because it failed to divide all of the marital debt. We agree and dismiss Husband's appeal for lack of a final judgment. Given the basis for our decision, the relevant facts may be succinctly stated. The trial court entered its third amended judgment in September 2014. Subject to certain exceptions not relevant here, paragraph 26 ordered that "the division of marital property

2 and debts shall be as set forth in Exhibit G-1, which [is] attached hereto and incorporated herein[.]" Paragraph 28 stated, in relevant part, that: Each party shall indemnify and hold the other party harmless from any liability on or as a result of any indebtedness which is assigned to him and/or her herein. [E]ach party shall remove the other [party's] name from any and all jointly held credit cards and each party shall become the sole and individual holder of any credit card awarded to them.

Paragraph 29 of the judgment stated that "[a]ny and all debts in the individual name of each party is that party's debts, and any debt incurred by each party since the date of the separation of the parties is that [party's] debt." Paragraph 30 of the judgment stated that "[t]he Court Orders that each party be responsible for any debt incurred since the date of the separation of the parties." Section III of Exhibit G-1 was titled "Liabilities" and included three listed debts. The first of these is described as "Bank Card Center Central Bank" with a balance of $5,000. According to Exhibit G-1, this was a joint debt owed by both parties. The trial court was required to divide the marital debt. See § 452.330.1 RSMo (2000); Rogers v. Rogers, 253 S.W.3d 134, 137 (Mo. App. 2008). The third amended judgment did not divide the $5,000 debt. The first part of paragraph 29 did not do so because this was a joint debt. The latter part of paragraph 29, as well as paragraph 30, did not do so because Exhibit G-1 contains no information concerning when, or by whom, the $5,000 debt was incurred. Because the debt was not assigned to either party, it is impossible to determine which party should remove the other party's name from that joint account, as required by paragraph 28 of the judgment, and become the sole and individual holder of that credit card account. The trial court's failure to divide this debt means that the judgment is not final and that Husband's appeal must be dismissed. See Pollard v. Pollard, 363 S.W.3d 386, 388 (Mo. App. 2012); Foster v. Foster, 345 S.W.3d

3 332, 334 (Mo. App. 2011); In re Marriage of Nardini, 306 S.W.3d 165, 171 (Mo. App. 2010).

JEFFREY W. BATES, J. – OPINION AUTHOR DANIEL E. SCOTT, P.J. – CONCUR MARY W. SHEFFIELD, C.J. – CONCUR

Related Opinions

PAUL METZGER, and JACQUELINE METZGER, Respondents v. WAYNE MORELOCK, and KATHY MORELOCK, Appellants(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictMarch 12, 2026#SD38930

affirmed

The trial court granted summary judgment to the Metzgers on their claim for a prescriptive easement over a portion of a paved driveway between their home and the Morelocks' property. The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

real-estateper_curiam1,904 words

Kevin Rosenbohm, Trustee of the Kevin and Michele Rosenbohm Family Trust Dated July 1, 2011 and Matt Rosenbohm and Nick Rosenbohm vs. Gregory Stiens, and Gregory Stiens, Trustee of the Anthony Stiens Trust(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87720

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the Rosenbohms on their adverse possession and trespass claims against Stiens regarding disputed tracts of property in Nodaway County. The court rejected Stiens's arguments regarding excluded evidence, cross-examination, jury instructions on permissive use defense, and remanded the case for the court to amend the judgment with precise legal descriptions of the disputed property.

real-estatemajority3,613 words

Arthur F. Daume, Jr., and Gayle C. Daume, Appellants, v. Thomas Szepanksi, et al., Respondents.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 3, 2026#ED113073

reversed

In this quiet title appeal, the court reversed the trial court's interpretation of an easement deed that the Daumes held over a private roadway. The court rejected the trial court's constructions that the easement's 'non-commercial purposes' limitation prohibited agricultural use and that it was restricted to the Daumes and their immediate family members.

real-estatemajority2,252 words

Colleen Eikmeier and William S. Love, Appellants, vs. Granite Springs Home Owners Association, Inc. A Missouri Not-For-Profit Corp., Respondent.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101161

reversed

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and held that a 2022 statute prohibiting homeowners' associations from banning solar panel installations applies to preexisting covenants, not just prospective ones. The homeowners' challenge to the HOA's restriction on solar panels visible from the street was successful, as the statute's prohibitions supersede prior restrictive covenants.

real-estatemajority4,531 words

State of Missouri, ex rel., State Tax Commission vs. County Executive of Jackson County, Missouri, Assessor of Jackson County, Missouri, Jackson County Board of Equalization, through its Members in their Official Capacities, Clerk of the Jackson County, Missouri, Legislature(2025)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 30, 2025#WD87831

affirmed
real-estatemajority3,220 words