Robert L. Keck, Jr., Appellant, v. Patricia A. Keck, Respondent.
Decision date: October 17, 1996
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: Robert L. Keck, Jr., Appellant, v. Patricia A. Keck, Respondent. Case Number: 73344 Handdown Date: 05/19/1998 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Frank A. Conard Counsel for Appellant: Charles M.M. Shepherd and Gregory M. Gantz Counsel for Respondent: Stephen R. Fleddermann Opinion Summary: Following denial of his motion for a hearing by a judge, Robert L. Keck, Jr., Father, appeals from Findings and Recommendations for Judgment and Decree of Dissolution issued by the Family Court Commissioner. DISMISSED. Division Four holds : This court lacks jurisdiction to review a judgment issued by a commissioner, unless the judgment has been adopted by a judge of the circuit court who was selected pursuant to Article V of the Missouri Constitution. Slay v. Slay, No. 80405, slip op. (Mo.banc March 24, 1998). A commissioner is not authorized to exercise judicial power by Article V of the Missouri Constitution. Id. In this case the judgment issued by the commissioner was not adopted by a judge of the circuit court. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review this appeal pursuant to Slay. Accordingly, Father's appeal is dismissed. Citation: Opinion Author: Robert G. Dowd, Jr., Presiding Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Simon and Hoff, J.J., concur. Opinion: Following denial of his motion for a hearing by a judge, Robert L. Keck, Jr., Father, appeals from the decision issued October 17, 1996, by the St. Charles County Family Court Commissioner. Appeal dismissed.
Initially, Father appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court raising constitutional challenges to Chapter 487 RSMo. On October 24, 1997, the Supreme Court issued its order "finding the constitutional challenge was not timely raised in the court below," and "[t]hus the issues relating to the validity of the challenged statutes have not been preserved." The Supreme Court transferred the case to this court. After the Supreme Court transferred the cause to this court, the Supreme Court handed down Slay v. Slay, No. 80405, slip op. (Mo.banc March 24, 1998), holding that a decision by a Family Court Commissioner could not be appealed because it was not signed by a person selected for office under Article V of the Missouri Constitution. We dismiss the appeal. On October 17, 1996, the Family Court Commissioner signed a document called Findings and Recommendations for Judgment and Decree of Dissolution. Following the Commissioner's decision Father moved for a hearing before a judge. His request was denied. This court lacks jurisdiction to review a decision issued by a commissioner, unless the decision has been adopted by a judge of the circuit court who was selected pursuant to Article V of the Missouri Constitution. Slay v. Slay, No. 80405, slip op. (Mo.banc March 24, 1998). A commissioner is not authorized to exercise judicial power by Article V of the Missouri Constitution. Id. In this case the decision issued by the commissioner was not adopted by a judge of the circuit court. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review this appeal pursuant to Slay. Moreover, even if the denial of Father's motion for hearing by a circuit judge could be construed as an adoption of the commissioner's decision, it would not be reviewable as a judgment because the circuit judge did not denominate it as a judgment. City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Mo.banc 1997). Accordingly, Father's appeal is dismissed. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Related Opinions
Ronald Wuebbeling, Respondent, vs. Jill Clark, f/k/a Jill Wuebbeling, Appellant.(2016)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictAugust 9, 2106#ED103501
L.J.F. vs. J.F.G.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 10, 2026#WD87987
The court affirmed the circuit court's renewal of a full order of protection against Father, which was made effective for his lifetime. The order prohibits Father from communicating with or coming within 100 feet of Mother, except for communications concerning their shared child, based on findings that Father engaged in stalking, harassment, and coercion that posed a serious danger to Mother's physical or mental health.
In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble vs. Bradford R. Noble(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#WD87485
Wife appealed the trial court's dissolution judgment, challenging the court's failure to provide a remedy after independent investigation of facts, the use of normalized income to determine husband's maintenance obligation, and the finding that husband lacked ability to pay maintenance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects.
In re the matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., minors; Alicia Smith, Respondent, vs. Lora Martinez, Appellant.(2026)
Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101121
The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of third-party visitation to Smith under section 452.375.5(5)(a), holding that this statute does not create an independent cause of action for third-party visitation when custody is not at issue. The court determined that Smith lacked standing to seek visitation rights after Martinez was granted full parental rights through adoption.
M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent.(2026)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 10, 2026#ED113141
The court affirmed the circuit court's child custody and support judgment, rejecting Father's six points of error regarding the Form 14 calculations, denial of Line 11 credit despite equal visitation time, disproportionate attorney's and GAL fees, and exclusion of testimony on equitable abatement. The appellate court found that Father failed to meet the required analytical standards for challenging the judgment and that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the Line 11 credit and ruling against equitable abatement.