Richard Halbman, Respondent, v. Gary Pitzer and Mary Ellen Pitzer, Appellants.

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: Richard Halbman, Respondent, v. Gary Pitzer and Mary Ellen Pitzer, Appellants. Case Number: ED76514 Handdown Date: 04/25/2000 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Maura B. McShane Counsel for Appellant: G. Michael Flotte Counsel for Respondent: Thomas A. Connelly Opinion Summary: Gary Pitzer and Mary Ellen Pitzer appeal the judgment denying their motion to dismiss. The case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found in favor of Richard Halbman. DISMISSED. Division One holds: The order denying the motion to dismiss is not reviewable. Citation: Opinion Author: Gary M. Gaertner, Presiding Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Simon and J. Dowd, J., concur. Opinion: Appellants, Gary Pitzer and Mary Ellen Pitzer, ("appellants"), appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, denying their motion to dismiss. We dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction. On September 16, 1997, respondent, Richard Halbman, ("respondent"), filed a three count petition against appellants for "suit on note." Prior to trial, respondent dismissed the third count. On July 31, 1998, appellants filed a motion to dismiss respondent's petition as barred by statute of limitation under section 516.120(1), RSMo. 1994. On

October 14, 1998, the appellants' motion to dismiss was overruled by the trial court and the matter proceeded to a jury trial. On May 24, 1999, the trial court entered its judgment in favor of the respondent, in accordance with the jury's verdict. Appellants' subsequent motion for a new trial was denied, after a hearing, by the trial court on July 9, 1999. Appellants appeal. Appellants raise one point on appeal. In their sole point, appellants argue the trial court erred in overruling their motion to dismiss respondent's petition because respondent's petition was barred by the statute of limitations. We have previously held that the trial court's denial of either a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment and therefore, is not reviewable. Reis v. Peabody Coal Co., 935 S.W.2d 625, 632 (Mo.App.E.D. 1996). See also, Reben v. Wilson, 861 S.W.2d 171, 175 (Mo.App.E.D. 1993). Accordingly, we decline to review appellants' appeal of the denial of their motion to dismiss respondent's petition. Based on the foregoing, appellants' appeal of the denial of their motion to dismiss respondent's petition is dismissed. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.