Patricia L. Ferguson, Appellant, v. Leigh Joy Carson and The Carson Law Firm, Respondents.
Decision date: UnknownED89871
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: Patricia L. Ferguson, Appellant, v. Leigh Joy Carson and The Carson Law Firm, Respondents. Case Number: ED89871 Handdown Date: 10/16/2007 Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Hon. Robert G. Wilkins Counsel for Appellant: Party Acting Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Mary A. Johnson Opinion Summary: Patricia Ferguson appeals from the trial court's judgment granting the transfer venue motion of Leigh Joy Carson and The Carson Law Firm to St. Louis County. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: This court lacks jurisdiction over Ferguson's appeal from a judgment granting a motion to transfer venue. Such a judgment is not final and appealable, because the entire case remains pending and no claims or parties have been resolved in the underlying cause. Citation: Opinion Author: Patricia L. Cohen, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Shaw and Baker, JJ., concur. Opinion: Patricia L. Ferguson (Appellant) appeals from a judgment granting the motion of Respondents Leigh Joy Carson and The Carson Law Firm to transfer venue in the case to St. Louis County. Because there is no final, appealable judgment,
the appeal is dismissed. Appellant is attempting to appeal from a judgment in her case that does not finally resolve the underlying cause. Indeed, it is a ruling on a miscellaneous motion in her cause that does not even resolve one of her claims against Respondents. Except for limited circumstances, an appellate court only has jurisdiction over final judgments that dispose of all claims and all parties in a case and leave nothing for future determination. O'Neill v. O'Neill, 864 S.W.2d 7, 8 (Mo.App.E.D. 1993). Moreover, for a judgment to be appealable, it must resolve at least one claim on the merits and cannot be a ruling on a miscellaneous issue that does not resolve even one claim. See, Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239, 244 (Mo. banc 1997). Here, the trial court's judgment does not resolve any claims in the underlying cause, which is presumably pending in St. Louis County Circuit Court, where venue was transferred. We issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. Appellant has filed a response. She asserts that this Court should grant an interlocutory appeal to review the issue of venue, because delaying review until the case is final would not promote the efficient use of judicial resources. This Court cannot create jurisdiction over a case where none exists. Our jurisdiction is explicitly set forth in section 512.020, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2006, and it does not extend to Appellant's case where no final judgment has been entered. An order granting a motion to transfer venue is not a final and appealable judgment, because the entire case remains pending and no claims or parties have been resolved. Chaganti v. Nowotny, 196 S.W.3d 606, 607 (Mo.App.E.D. 2006). Appellant's remedy for review of a change of venue prior to final judgment is through a petition for extraordinary writ. See, State ex rel. Harness v. Grady, 201 S.W.3d 48, 50 (Mo.App.E.D. 2006). Otherwise, this judgment may only be reviewed after there is a final, appealable judgment. See, Montgomery v. South County Radiologists, Inc., 168 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Mo.App.E.D. 2005). The appeal is dismissed for lack of an 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
PAUL METZGER, and JACQUELINE METZGER, Respondents v. WAYNE MORELOCK, and KATHY MORELOCK, Appellants(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictMarch 12, 2026#SD38930
The trial court granted summary judgment to the Metzgers on their claim for a prescriptive easement over a portion of a paved driveway between their home and the Morelocks' property. The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Kevin Rosenbohm, Trustee of the Kevin and Michele Rosenbohm Family Trust Dated July 1, 2011 and Matt Rosenbohm and Nick Rosenbohm vs. Gregory Stiens, and Gregory Stiens, Trustee of the Anthony Stiens Trust(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87720
The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the Rosenbohms on their adverse possession and trespass claims against Stiens regarding disputed tracts of property in Nodaway County. The court rejected Stiens's arguments regarding excluded evidence, cross-examination, jury instructions on permissive use defense, and remanded the case for the court to amend the judgment with precise legal descriptions of the disputed property.
Arthur F. Daume, Jr., and Gayle C. Daume, Appellants, v. Thomas Szepanksi, et al., Respondents.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 3, 2026#ED113073
In this quiet title appeal, the court reversed the trial court's interpretation of an easement deed that the Daumes held over a private roadway. The court rejected the trial court's constructions that the easement's 'non-commercial purposes' limitation prohibited agricultural use and that it was restricted to the Daumes and their immediate family members.
Colleen Eikmeier and William S. Love, Appellants, vs. Granite Springs Home Owners Association, Inc. A Missouri Not-For-Profit Corp., Respondent.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101161
The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and held that a 2022 statute prohibiting homeowners' associations from banning solar panel installations applies to preexisting covenants, not just prospective ones. The homeowners' challenge to the HOA's restriction on solar panels visible from the street was successful, as the statute's prohibitions supersede prior restrictive covenants.
State of Missouri, ex rel., State Tax Commission vs. County Executive of Jackson County, Missouri, Assessor of Jackson County, Missouri, Jackson County Board of Equalization, through its Members in their Official Capacities, Clerk of the Jackson County, Missouri, Legislature(2025)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 30, 2025#WD87831