Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: Lonnie Snelling, Appellant, v. Samuel Beck, Cathy Beck, Cynthia Austin and Joey Foster, a minor, and John and Jane Does, Respondents.
Case Number: ED92761
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: 2009-12-22
Outcome: dismissed
Practice Area: real-estate
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lonnie-snelling-appellant-v-samuel-beck-cathy-beck-cynthia-austin-and-joe-d92761
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=36138
Related Practice Areas:
- Real Estate: https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=real-estate&ott_archive_query=Lonnie+Snelling%2C+Appellant%2C+v.+Samuel+Beck%2C+Cathy+Beck%2C+Cynthia+Austin+and+Joey+Foster%2C+a+minor%2C+and+John+and+Jane+Does%2C+Respondents.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=20&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+real-estate&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: real-estate; source: tag; score: 20; evidence: tag: real-estate)

---
## Opinion

LONNIE            SNELLING,                                    )            No.ED92761            
      ) 
            Appellant,                                                )            Appeal            from            the            Circuit            Court            
                                                                        )            of            the            City            of            St.            Louis            
vs.      ) 
      ) 
SAMUEL BECK, CATHY BECK,    ) Hon. Barbara T. Peebles 
CYNTHIA            AUSTIN            and                                    )            
JOEY FOSTER, a minor, and   ) 
JOHN AND JANE DOES,       ) 
      ) 
            Respondents.                                                )            FILED:                        December            22,            2009            
 
Lonnie  Snelling  (Appellant)  appeals  pro  se  from  the  trial  court's  judgment  in  his  action  
against  Samuel  and  Cathy  Beck,  Cynthia  Austin  and  her  minor  son  Joey  Foster,  and  unknown  
defendants "John and Jane Does" (collectively, Defendants). 
Appellant  filed  a  four-count  petition  alleging  essentially  that  Defendants  trespassed  on  
and  vandalized  Appellant's  real  property  in  the  City  of  St.  Louis.    The  trial  court  granted  
summary  judgment  in  favor  of  the  Becks,  entered  a  default  judgment  against  Ms.  Austin  for  
$2000,  and  dismissed  the  action  as  to  her  son  Joey.    The  record  is  silent  on  attempted  
identification, service, or disposition as to the "Does."   
Appellant  asserts  six  points  of  error,  the  merits  of  which  we  do  not  reach  because  
Appellant  also  contends,  perhaps  unwittingly,  that  this  court  lacks  jurisdiction  to  consider  his  
appeal in that his claims against the "Does" remain pending.  Indeed, an order adjudicating the 

 
2
claims, rights and liabilities of fewer than all parties does not terminate the action as to any of the 
claims or parties unless the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay.  Rule 
74.01(b).  The trial court's judgment contains no such determination here, and our review of the 
record revealed no dismissal of the Does either by Appellant voluntarily or by order of the court 
for failure to prosecute.   Therefore, the court's judgment is not final, and consequently we lack 
jurisdiction  and  must  dismiss  the  appeal.    See KAS  Enterprises,  Inc.  v.  City  of  St.  Louis
,  121  
S.W.3d 262 (Mo. App. 2003) (summary judgment in favor of defendant city without mention of 
defendant  John  Doe  was  not  final  and  appealable  without  an  express  determination  of  no  just  
reason for delay); Garrett v. Finnell
, 999 S.W.2d 304 (Mo. App. 1999) (dismissal of all but one 
unserved co-defendant not final and appealable without express determination of no just reason 
for delay); Smith v. Lewis, 669 S.W.2d 558 (Mo. App. 1983) (plaintiff entitled to retain petition 
against  unknown  defendants;  claims  against  John  Does  not  appropriate  for  decision  unless  and  
until process made on actual defendants in their stead). 
Appeal dismissed. 
 
                                                            _________________________________                        
                                                            CLIFFORD            H.            AHRENS,            Judge            
 
Kathianne Knaup Crane, P.J., concurs. 
Nannette A. Baker, J., concurs.