K.J.J. Ltd., John Keeley, Jo Ann Keeley, and Kevin Keeley, Respondents/Cross-Appellants, v. Reinert and Duree, P.C., Bernard A. Reinert, Defendants/Appellants, and Robert Carter, Defendant.

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: K.J.J. Ltd., John Keeley, Jo Ann Keeley, and Kevin Keeley, Respondents/Cross-Appellants, v. Reinert and Duree, P.C., Bernard A. Reinert, Defendants/Appellants, and Robert Carter, Defendant. Case Number: ED89623 and ED89677 Handdown Date: 08/12/2008 Appeal From: Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Philip Heagney Counsel for Appellant: Anthony R. Behr, Thomas J. Hayek, Julia A. Bruzina and Stacy G. Jackson Counsel for Respondent: John A. Pawloski Opinion Summary: Bernard Reinert and Reinert & Duree, P.C., appeal the circuit court's judgment entered against Reinert. KJJ, Ltd. n/k/a KJJ, Ltd. III, John Keeley, Jo Ann Keeley, and Kevin Keeley also appeal. The circuit made no findings concerning either the law firm or KJJ, and the trial court's judgment likewise failed to dispose of these two parties. DISMISSED. Division Two holds: Because the judgment does not dispose of all parties and issues in the case, it is not a final judgment. Without a final judgment, this court lacks jurisdiction. Therefore, we dismiss the Reinert's appeal and the KJJ and the Keeley's cross-appeal. Citation:

Opinion Author: Lawrence E. Mooney, Judge Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Richter, P.J., and Draper III, J., concur. Opinion: The defendants, Bernard Reinert ("Reinert") and Reinert & Duree, P.C. n/k/a Reinert & Rourke, P.C. ("the law firm"), appeal the judgment entered against Reinert by the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis following a jury trial. The plaintiffs, KJJ, Ltd. n/k/a KJJ, Ltd. III, John Keeley, Jo Ann Keeley, and Kevin Keeley, also appeal. The judgment, however, is not final because it fails to dispose of the law firm and KJJ. Therefore, we dismiss the defendants' appeal and the plaintiffs' cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs sued the defendants in connection with their representation of the plaintiffs in an underlying action involving a mechanic's lien and multiple other claims against the plaintiffs' landlord. The jury found in favor of the Keeleys and against Reinert on the plaintiffs' negligence/malpractice claim and awarded $100,000 in damages. The jury also found in favor of the third defendant, Robert Carter. The jury made no finding either in favor of or against the law firm or in favor of or against KJJ. On every appeal, this Court must determine whether we have jurisdiction. Comm. for Educ. Equal. v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. banc 1994); Columbia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Epstein, 200 S.W.3d 547, 549 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006). Appellate review requires a final judgment, and where the judgment appealed from is not final, the Court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal. Section 512.020 RSMo. (Supp. 2007); Columbia, 200 S.W.3d at 549. A final, appealable judgment disposes of all issues and all parties in the litigation and leaves nothing for future determination. Id. Here, the jury made no findings concerning either the law firm or KJJ, and the trial court's judgment likewise failed to dispose of these two corporate parties. Because the judgment does not dispose of all parties and issues in the

case, it is not a final judgment. Id. Without a final judgment, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Id. Therefore, we dismiss the defendants' appeal and the plaintiffs' cross-appeal.(FN1) Footnotes: FN1. We deny all pending motions. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.