In re the Marriage of Rebecca Dalene Hoy and Stephen Everett Hoy. Rebecca Dalene Hoy, Appellant, v. Stephen Everett Hoy, Respondent.
Decision date: Unknown
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: In re the Marriage of Rebecca Dalene Hoy and Stephen Everett Hoy. Rebecca Dalene Hoy, Appellant, v. Stephen Everett Hoy, Respondent. Case Number: 21684 Handdown Date: 02/17/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Stone County, Hon. William T. Kirsch Counsel for Appellant: George L. Gundy Counsel for Respondent: Mark J. Millsap Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: John C. Crow, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Garrison, P.J., and Prewitt, J., concur. Opinion: Rebecca Dalene Hoy ("Mother") appeals from the trial court's denial of Mother's motion for modification of a judgment which dissolved Mother's marriage to Stephen Everett Hoy. Mother's motion prayed the trial court to change the provisions in the judgment pertaining to custody of the parties' child. Attached to Mother's notice of appeal is a one-page document denominated "Docket Entry." The notice of appeal and Mother's brief identify the document as the judgment from which Mother appeals. Rule 74.01(a), Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure (1997), reads: "'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' is filed. The judgment may be a separate document or included on the docket sheet of the case." (Emphasis added.) The docket entry here fails to satisfy two requirements for a judgment in Rule 74.01(a). First, the entry is not signed by the judge.(FN1) Second, the entry is not denominated a "judgment."
Although the word "judgment" appears twice in the entry, the obvious purpose of the word both times is to refer to the judgment of dissolution of marriage, not to denominate the docket entry a "judgment." Consequently, the entry does not satisfy the requirement of Rule 74.01(a) that the writing be denominated a "judgment." City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 853[2] and [3-5] (Mo. banc 1997). See: Skalecki v. Small, 951 S.W.2d 342, 346 (Mo.App. S.D. 1997). Because the docket entry is not signed by the judge and is not denominated a "judgment," it is not a judgment as defined by Rule 74.01(a). Consequently, this appeal must be dismissed. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d at 852-53. So ordered. Footnotes: FN1. In Kessinger v. Kessinger, 935 S.W.2d 347, 349[1] (Mo.App. S.D. 1996), this court held a judge's handwritten initials satisfy the requirement of Rule 74.01(a) that the judgment be "signed by the judge." However, neither a signature nor handwritten initials appear on the docket entry here. 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.