OTT LAW

In re the Marriage of Ruth Anne Lindsay and George Roland Lindsay. Ruth Anne Lindsay, Petitioner/Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. George Roland Lindsay, Respondent/Respondent/Cross-Appellant.

Decision date: March 24, 1998

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 Ruth Anne Lindsay and George Roland Lindsay. Ruth Anne Lindsay, Petitioner/Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. George Roland Lindsay, Respondent/Respondent/Cross-Appellant. Case Number: 21304 and 21324 Handdown Date: 03/25/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Greene County, Hon. Winston Davis Counsel for Appellant: Susan S. Jensen Counsel for Respondent: Steven E. Marsh Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: John C. Crow, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Garrison, P.J., and Prewitt, J., concur. Opinion: Each party appeals from a document designated "Findings, Recommendations and Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage" signed by a family court commissioner of the Circuit Court of Greene County. This opinion henceforth refers to the document as "the putative judgment." The putative judgment is not signed by a judge. In Marriage of Slay, ___ S.W.2d ___ (Mo. banc 1998), number 80405, decided March 24, 1998, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that a document purporting to be a judgment signed by a commissioner of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County was not a judgment because it was not signed by a judge. Consequently, explained the Court: "[N]o final appealable judgment has been entered, and this Court is without jurisdiction." The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The putative judgment from which the parties bring the instant appeal has the same defect as the purported judgment in Slay.

This court is constitutionally bound to follow the decisions of the Supreme Court of Missouri. Mo. Const., Art. V, section 2 (1945); Fletcher v. Stillman, 934 S.W.2d 597, 599[2] (Mo.App. S.D. 1996). In compliance with Slay, the instant appeals are dismissed. 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

affirmed
family-lawmajority5,654 words

L.J.F. vs. J.F.G.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 10, 2026#WD87987

affirmed

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.

family-lawper_curiam4,882 words

In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble vs. Bradford R. Noble(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#WD87485

affirmed

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.

family-lawmajority8,056 words

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

reversed

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.

family-lawper_curiam3,296 words

M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 10, 2026#ED113141

affirmed

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.

family-lawmajority3,425 words