OTT LAW

John Francis and Joan Francis, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Charles Richardson and Echo Richardson, Defendants-Appellants.

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: John Francis and Joan Francis, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Charles Richardson and Echo Richardson, Defendants-Appellants. Case Number: No. 21350 Handdown Date: 09/10/1997 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Butler County, Hon. John A. Clark Counsel for Appellant: Robert L. Smith Counsel for Respondent: Matthew S. Edmundson Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Kenneth W. Shrum, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Parrish, P.J., and Barney, J., concur. Opinion: In this non-jury matter, a judge granted Plaintiffs judgment against Defendants for $5,018.45. The damage award represented the value of one month's rent and damages resulting from an alleged failure by Defendants to maintain rental property pursuant to a lease. Defendants appeal, presenting two issues. The first issue is dispositive. In it, Defendants contend the associate circuit judge did not have authority to enter judgment because the judgment was not entered within thirty days after submission as required by section 517.111.2, RSMo 1994. Plaintiffs concede that Defendants' point is well taken, agree that the judgment is "void," and admit that the case must be remanded for entry of a new judgment. Accordingly, we remand for that purpose. The record reveals that this case was tried and submitted to a judge of the associate division of the circuit court of Butler County on April 10, 1996. The trial court entered judgment on October 9, 1996. The entry of judgment six months after submission ran contrary to the provisions of section 517.111.2, RSMo 1994.

Section 517.111.2 reads: "When a case is tried before a judge without a jury, judgment shall be entered by the judge within thirty days after the case is submitted for final decision unless the parties consent to a longer period of time." In Stellwagen v. Gates, 758 S.W.2d 195 (Mo.App. 1988) and in Larimer v. Robertson, 800 S.W.2d 154 (Mo.App. 1990), we held that the purported judgments were void because (1) they were not entered within 30 days after submission and (2) the parties had not consented to a longer period. Stellwagen, 758 S.W.2d at 197[1]; Larimer, 800 S.W.2d at 155. Recently, the eastern district reached the same result in Kamp v. Grantham, 937 S.W.2d 258, 259 (Mo.App. 1996). See also, State ex rel. M.J. Gorzik Corp. v. Mosman, 315 S.W.2d 209, 214 (Mo. 1958) (under a similar predecessor statute, supreme court held that a judgment rendered after time limit was void). Here, the associate circuit judge rendered judgment approximately six months after submission. Neither party argues that consent was given for a longer period of time. Thus, pursuant to Kamp, Larimer, and Stellwagen, we hold that the purported judgment entered in this case is void. In their second point, Defendants ask us to declare that there was not sufficient substantial evidence to support the judgment. Since the judgment is void, we will not address this point. "We know of nothing more futile in the law than a decision and opinion by a court in a cause whereof it has no jurisdiction." Reichardt Motor Co. v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 237 Mo.App. 902, 179 S.W.2d 112, 114 (1944). We dismiss this appeal and remand the case to the associate division of the circuit court of Butler County, with the following directions. The associate circuit judge who entered this judgment shall on his own initiative, or on the motion of either party, as soon as possible after timely notice to all parties, set a date at which time he shall enter an order setting aside all entries made on or after October 9, 1996, and treat the case as finally submitted on that new date. The associate circuit judge shall then enter a judgment within the time period mandated by section 517.111.2, RSMo 1994. In the event the trial judge who entered the void judgment is no longer judge of the associate division of the circuit court of Butler County, his successor shall enter an order setting aside all entries made on or after October 9, 1996, and shall grant the parties a new trial on the issues. See Larimer, 800 S.W.2d at 156; Stellwagen, 758 S.W.2d at 197. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Related Opinions

AIG Agency, Inc., d/b/a Associated Insurance Group, Appellant, vs. Missouri General Insurance Agency, Inc., Jim Baxendale and Mitch O'Brien, Respondents.(2015)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictNovember 3, 3015#ED102096

affirmed
personal-injurymajority3,747 words

Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101091

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's decision to exclude Hanshaw's expert witness testimony and grant summary judgment to Crown Equipment in a product liability case involving an allegedly defectively designed forklift. The expert's opinions were properly excluded because they were not supported by reliable methodology, as the expert performed no tests and failed to demonstrate how cited research and data supported his conclusions.

personal-injurymajority2,703 words

Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson, Appellant, vs. Natasha Kaminsky, et al., Respondents.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101020

remanded

The court affirmed the directed verdict as to four counts against Norman based on agency but vacated and remanded the defamation counts against Kaminsky and one count against Norman, finding that the circuit court erred in requiring independent evidence of reputational damage beyond the plaintiff's own testimony when the evidence of harm was substantial and directly resulted from the defendants' statements.

personal-injuryper_curiam4,488 words

K.A.C. by and through, ASHLEY ACOSTA, NEXT FRIEND, and MICHAEL CRITES, JR., Appellants v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL., Respondents(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictJanuary 12, 2026#SD38943

affirmed

Appellants sought damages for a wrongful death resulting from a motor vehicle collision involving a pursued driver, alleging the Missouri State Highway Patrol's pursuit was negligent and proximately caused the collision. The court affirmed summary judgment for MSHP, finding that Appellants failed to produce sufficient facts demonstrating that MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, which is a necessary element of their case.

personal-injuryper_curiam3,654 words

Mark and Sherry Davis, and David and Denise Kamm; Kevin Laughlin vs. City of Kearney, Missouri(2025)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 16, 2025#WD87389

affirmed
personal-injurymajority7,717 words