OTT LAW

LINDA MARIE COE, Petitioner/Respondent-Respondent vs. STANLEY HAROLD ROGER COE, Respondent/Movant-Appellant

Decision date: UnknownSD30900

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.

Syllabus

1

In re the Marriage of: ) LINDA MARIE COE, ) ) Petitioner/Respondent-Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD30900 ) STANLEY HAROLD ROGER COE, ) ) Respondent/Movant-Appellant. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF NEWTON COUNTY

Honorable Kevin L. Selby, Associate Circuit Judge Before Burrell, C.J., P.J., Rahmeyer, J., and Lynch, J. DISMISSED

PER CURIAM. After a hearing on Stanley Harold Roger Coe's ("Appellant's")

Motion to Modify Judgment and Dissolution of Marriage, the trial court entered a handwritten docket entry on October 4, 2010, in which it dismissed the case due to Appellant's failure to comply with discovery. Appellant, operating pro se, then filed a timely notice of appeal relating to the October 4 th docket entry. Appellant presents three points relied on that raise generalized and unsubstantiated complaints about the conduct of the trial judge and opposing counsel.

2 Linda Marie Coe ("Respondent") contends that the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case and denying Appellant's motion, that the docket entry appealed from is not a final, appealable judgment, and that Appellant's brief substantially deviates from the requirements of Rule 84.04. 1 While it is apparent that Appellant's brief fails to comply with Rule 84.04 to such an extent that his appeal is all but unintelligible and incapable of being reviewed, we need not reach that contention because the October 4 th

docket sheet entry is not a "judgment" under Rule 74.01(a). "A prerequisite to appellate review is that there be a final judgment." Brooks v. State, 242 S.W.3d 705, 708 (Mo. banc 2008). Only judgments that are final may be appealed. Carleton Properties, LLC v. Patterson, 304 S.W.3d 278, 280 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010). A final judgment disposes all issues as to all parties, leaving nothing for future consideration. Brooks, 242 S.W.3d at 708. Rule 74.01(a) provides, in relevant part: "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" or "decree" is filed. The judgment may be a separate document or entry on the docket sheet of the case.

Rule 74.01(a). Here, the docket entry from which Appellant appeals falls short of this standard. It was not denominated a "judgment," nor was it signed or initialed by the judge. The court also failed to enter a separate document bearing the markers of a final judgment. See In re Marriage of Berger, 931 S.W.2d 216, 217 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996) (holding that a mere docket entry, not denominated as "judgment," was not a judgment under Rule 74.01(a), thus warranting dismissal of the appeal).

1 All rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2011).

3 There being no judgment, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is granted and this appeal is dismissed.

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