OTT LAW

Patricia Walker, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Lee Smallwood, Defendant/Appellant.

Decision date: January 3, 2007ED89516

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 Walker, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Lee Smallwood, Defendant/Appellant. Case Number: ED89516 Handdown Date: 03/04/2008 Appeal From: Circuit Court of City of St. Louis, Hon. Angela Turner Quigless Counsel for Appellant: Timothy E. Hogan Counsel for Respondent: Ely Hadowsky Opinion Summary: Lee Smallwood appeals from a judgment entered against him on the claim of Patricia Walker for damages incurred in an automobile accident. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: This court lacks jurisdiction to consider Smallwodd's appeal, because his notice of appeal to this court was untimely. Citation: Opinion Author: Patricia L. Cohen, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Shaw and Baker, JJ., concur. Opinion:

Lee Smallwood (Appellant) appeals from a judgment entered against him on the claim of Patricia Walker (Respondent) for damages incurred in an automobile accident. Because Appellant's notice of appeal is untimely, the appeal is dismissed. This Court has an obligation to discern its jurisdiction to consider an appeal. State v. Lynch, 192 S.W.3d 502 (Mo.App.E.D. 2006). This Court only has jurisdiction if Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal. Johnson v. Summers, 596 S.W.2d 78, 79 (Mo.App.S.D. 1980). Appellant filed a notice of appeal from the trial court's judgment, which was entered January 3, 2007. Under Rule 81.04(a), the notice of appeal must be filed no later than 10 days after the judgment becomes final. If a party files a timely authorized after-trial motion, the judgment becomes final at the expiration of ninety (90) days after the filing of the motion or, if such motion is passed on at an earlier date, at the later of: (1) thirty (30) days after the entry of judgment; or (2) disposition of the motion. Rule 81.05(a). Here, the trial court entered its judgment on January 3, 2007. Appellant filed timely post-trial motions for remittitur and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the alternative, motion for new trial. The trial court denied these motions on February 20, 2007. Therefore, the judgment became final on February 20, 2007, and the notice of appeal was due on March 2, 2007. Rule 81.05(a); Rule 81.04(a). Appellant's notice of appeal, which was filed on March 29, 2007, is untimely. Respondent also filed a motion for prejudgment interest. However, this motion is not appear to be an "authorized after-trial motion" as required under Rule 81.05(a). Anderson v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co., 127 S.W.3d 698, 701-02 (Mo.App.E.D. 2004). The trial court granted this motion on February 8, 2007 by entering an order simply granting the motion. Even if this order could be considered an amended judgment, it would have been final at the latest on Monday, March 12, 2007. Rule 81.05(a); Rule 44.01(a). The notice of appeal from it would have been due on March 22, 2007, and Appellant's notice of appeal was still untimely. Rule 81.04(a). If this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, then it should be dismissed. Buff v. Roper, 155 S.W.3d 811, 812 (Mo.App.E.D. 2005). This Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed. Appellant has filed a response to the order. In the response, Appellant concedes that his notice of appeal is

untimely. However, Appellant states that he never received notice of the denial of the post-trial motions until March 26, 2007 when he inquired at the Clerk's Office. Appellant asserts the Clerk never mailed a copy of the March 26, 2007 order as required by Rule 74.03. Appellant also concedes that the time for filing a motion for late notice of appeal under Rule 81.07 has expired at this time. However, it had not expired at the time Appellant first learned of the denial of the post-trial motions. Appellant now asks this Court to "correct date of entry of judgment of trial court denying Defendant/Appellant's timely filed post trial motions to conform to the evidence pursuant to Missouri Rule 74.06(a)." Appellant requests that the date of the denial be corrected to March 26, 2007. Rule 74.06(a) allows the trial court, with leave of the appellate court, to correct clerical mistakes in judgments or other parts of the record. The order denying Appellant's post-trial motions was entered on February 20, 2007. This date is not a mistake. Appellant's motion to correct the date of entry is denied. Appellant could have filed a motion under Rule 74.03 within six months in the circuit court to set aside the order of February 20, 2007 for failure of the Clerk to mail notice of the entry of the order. Appellant could also have filed a request for a late notice of appeal within the six months of final judgment under Rule 81.07. However, the six months under both rules has now expired. The appeal is dismissed for lack of a timely notice of appeal. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.

Related Opinions

AIG Agency, Inc., d/b/a Associated Insurance Group, Appellant, vs. Missouri General Insurance Agency, Inc., Jim Baxendale and Mitch O'Brien, Respondents.(2015)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictNovember 3, 3015#ED102096

affirmed
personal-injurymajority3,747 words

Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101091

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's decision to exclude Hanshaw's expert witness testimony and grant summary judgment to Crown Equipment in a product liability case involving an allegedly defectively designed forklift. The expert's opinions were properly excluded because they were not supported by reliable methodology, as the expert performed no tests and failed to demonstrate how cited research and data supported his conclusions.

personal-injurymajority2,703 words

Mouna Apperson, f/k/a Nicholas Apperson, Appellant, vs. Natasha Kaminsky, et al., Respondents.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101020

remanded

The court affirmed the directed verdict as to four counts against Norman based on agency but vacated and remanded the defamation counts against Kaminsky and one count against Norman, finding that the circuit court erred in requiring independent evidence of reputational damage beyond the plaintiff's own testimony when the evidence of harm was substantial and directly resulted from the defendants' statements.

personal-injuryper_curiam4,488 words

K.A.C. by and through, ASHLEY ACOSTA, NEXT FRIEND, and MICHAEL CRITES, JR., Appellants v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, ET AL., Respondents(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictJanuary 12, 2026#SD38943

affirmed

Appellants sought damages for a wrongful death resulting from a motor vehicle collision involving a pursued driver, alleging the Missouri State Highway Patrol's pursuit was negligent and proximately caused the collision. The court affirmed summary judgment for MSHP, finding that Appellants failed to produce sufficient facts demonstrating that MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, which is a necessary element of their case.

personal-injuryper_curiam3,654 words

Mark and Sherry Davis, and David and Denise Kamm; Kevin Laughlin vs. City of Kearney, Missouri(2025)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 16, 2025#WD87389

affirmed
personal-injurymajority7,717 words