John R. Boyce, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Mary Ann Boyce, Defendant/Respondent.
Decision date: UnknownED86482
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: John R. Boyce, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Mary Ann Boyce, Defendant/Respondent. Case Number: ED86482 Handdown Date: 12/06/2005 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Judy P. Draper Counsel for Appellant: M. Zane Yates Counsel for Respondent: Joyce M. Capshaw Opinion Summary:
John Boyce (husband) appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition for annulment of his marriage to Mary Ann Boyce (wife). DISMISSED. Division Five holds: There is no final, appealable judgment disposing of all claims in this case because wife's counter-petition for dissolution of marriage is still pending with the trial court. Accordingly, husband's appeal must be dismissed. Citation: Opinion Author: Glenn A. Norton, C.J. Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Knaup Crane and Shaw, JJ., concur. Opinion:
John R. Boyce (Husband) appeals from a judgment dismissing his petition for annulment of his marriage to Mary Ann Boyce (Wife). Because there is no final, appealable judgment, we dismiss the appeal. Husband filed a petition for annulment of his marriage to Wife. Wife filed a counter-petition for dissolution of marriage. She also filed a motion to dismiss Husband's petition for annulment. On June 10, 2005, the trial court granted
Wife's motion to dismiss and dismissed Husband's petition for annulment. Husband filed this appeal. An appellate court only has jurisdiction over final judgments that dispose of all parties and claims in the case and that leave nothing for future determination. Rule 74.01(b); O'Neill v. O'Neill , 864 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). If the trial court does not resolve all the issues as to all the parties or expressly designate "there is no just reason for delay" under Rule 74.01(b), then this Court does not have jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed. Fleahman v. Fleahman , 25 S.W.3d 162, 164 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999). Here, the trial court's judgment only dismissed Husband's petition for annulment. Wife's counter-petition for dissolution of marriage remains pending with the trial court. This Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final, appealable judgment. Appellant has filed a response in which he argues that the dismissal of his petition is a judgment and that he will be prejudiced if this cannot be reviewed prior to the trial of the dissolution. Appellant correctly points out that he has a judgment as required by Rule 74.01(a). However, it is not a final judgment. In addition, his arguments concerning prejudice will not vest this Court with jurisdiction in the absence of a final judgment or certification under Rule 74.01(b). The appeal is dismissed for lack of a final, appealable judgment. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
Rodney Lee Lincoln, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent.(2014)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictDecember 2, 2104#ED100987
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. James McGregory, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictMarch 10, 2026#ED113080
McGregory appealed his convictions for domestic assault in the third degree and property damage in the second degree, raising unpreserved claims of error regarding evidence admissibility and the Crime Victims' Compensation Fund judgment amount. The court affirmed the convictions but modified the CVC judgment amount, finding the trial court entered a judgment in excess of that authorized by law.
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RUSSELL KENNETH CLANCY, Appellant(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictFebruary 25, 2026#SD38782
The court affirmed Clancy's conviction for second-degree assault against a special victim after a jury trial. The evidence was sufficient to prove that Clancy punched an elderly civilian in the face and struck a police officer during an altercation at a laundromat, supporting the conviction under Missouri statute § 565.052.3.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. James Willis Peters, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101218
James Willis Peters appealed his conviction for driving while intoxicated as a chronic offender, challenging whether the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that all four of his prior offenses were intoxication-related traffic offenses. The court found the state failed to sufficiently prove his 2002 offense was an IRTO and therefore vacated the judgment and remanded for resentencing.
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Deandre D. Walton, Appellant.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 17, 2026#ED112976
Appellant Deandre Walton appealed his convictions for two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of armed criminal action, and unlawful possession of a firearm, arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements and admitting evidence of his statements at trial. The appellate court affirmed the convictions, finding no error in the trial court's denial of the suppression motion.