Marilyn E. Williams, Respondent, v. Roger W. Williams, Appellant.

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: Marilyn E. Williams, Respondent, v. Roger W. Williams, Appellant. Case Number: 72848 Handdown Date: 11/24/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Frank A. Conard Counsel for Appellant: Richard Margrave Stout and Michael P. Cohan Counsel for Respondent: Deborah Jean Tomich Opinion Summary: Husband appeals from the Findings, Recommendations and Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, arguing that the trial court erred in dividing the marital portion of his pension plan and in ordering the parties to continue to hold certain custodial accounts and bonds in trust for their daughter. DISMISSED. Division Three holds: The Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over this appeal, because no final judgment signed by a judge was entered in this case. Citation: Opinion Author: Lawrence E. Mooney, Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Simon, P.J. and Crane, J., concur. Opinion: Opinion modified by Court's own motion on December 8, 1998. This substitution does not constitute a new opinion. Following a hearing, Norman C. Steimel III, Commissioner of the Family Court of St. Charles County, filed a document entitled "Findings, Recommendations and Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage." Husband, the Respondent

below, filed a Motion for Rehearing that was denied by Frank A. Conard, Judge of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County. Husband subsequently filed this appeal raising two claims of error. First, he asserts that the Commissioner erred in his division of the marital portion of Husband's pension plan; and second, he contends that the Commissioner erred in ordering the parties to hold certain custodial accounts and bonds in trust for their daughter. Although the parties have not raised the issue, we must determine our jurisdiction over this appeal sua sponte. Peters v. United Consumers Club, 786 S.W.2d 192, 193 (Mo.App. E.D. 1990). A final appealable judgment consists of a writing, signed by a judge, denominated judgment and filed. Rule 74.01(a). A "judge" for purposes of Rule 74.01(a) is a person selected for office in accordance with and authorized to exercise judicial power by Article V of the Missouri Constitution. Slay v. Slay, 965 S.W.2d 845 (Mo. banc 1998). The Supreme Court of Missouri recently held that a document purporting to be a judgment signed by a family court commissioner is not a judgment for purposes of Rule 74.01(a), because it is not signed by a "judge" under the above definition. Id. The document entitled "Findings, Recommendations and Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage" in this case was signed by a commissioner of the family court, not a judge as required by Rule 74.01(a). Thus, because no final appealable judgment has been entered, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.