State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, Family Support Division, Plaintiff/Appellant and Adrienne M. Anderson n/k/a Jordan, Plaintiff, v. Gregory L. Anderson, Defendant/Respondent.
Decision date: UnknownED89624
Parties & Roles
- Appellant
- State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, Family Support Division, Plaintiff/·State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, Family Support Division, Plaintiff/Appellant and Adrienne M. Anderson n/k/a Jordan
- Respondent
- Gregory L. Anderson, Defendant/
Disposition
Mixed outcome
- {"type":"dismissed","scope":null}
- {"type":"modified","scope":null}
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: State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, Family Support Division, Plaintiff/Appellant and Adrienne M. Anderson n/k/a Jordan, Plaintiff, v. Gregory L. Anderson, Defendant/Respondent. Case Number: ED89624 Handdown Date: 06/29/2007 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Dennis Neil Smith Counsel for Appellant: Rebecca Holt Kuether, Andrienne Anderson, Pro Se Counsel for Respondent: Gregory Louis Anderson, Pro Se Opinion Summary: State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, Family Support Division, appeals from the trial court denying its motion to review and approve a proposed modification of a judicial order. The division moved to review and approve a proposed modification of a judicial order, which would have modified the amount of child support owed by Gregory Anderson. The trial court wrote "denied" on the proposed modification and then signed and dated its denial. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: Because the trial court's writing on motion that it was "denied" is not denominated a judgment as required by Rule 74.01(a), we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Citation: Opinion Author: Booker T. Shaw, Chief Judge Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Norton, J. and Cohen, J., Opinion:
State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, Family Support Division (Appellant) appeals from an order denying its motion to review and approve a proposed modification of a judicial order. The appeal is dismissed. This Court has an obligation to determine sua sponte whether it has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal, and if we lack jurisdiction, we should dismiss the appeal. Bryant v. City of University City, 105 S.W.3d 855, 856 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003). In a civil case, a judgment must be expressly denominated "judgment" or "decree" to be appealable. Rule 74.01(a); Williams v. Imperial Homes, Inc., 169 S.W.3d 554, 555 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005). In designating the writing a "judgment," it must be clear from the writing that the trial court is calling the document or docket sheet entry a judgment. City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Mo. banc 1997). Here, Appellant filed a motion to review and approve a proposed modification of a judicial order, which would modify the amount of child support owed by Gregory Anderson (Respondent). The trial court wrote, "Denied" on the proposed modification and then signed and dated its denial. This denial is not denominated a judgment as required by Rule 74.01(a). We issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why its appeal should not be dismissed and providing Appellant an opportunity to ask the circuit court to enter a judgment that complied with Rule 74.01(a). Appellant has failed to respond to our order and has not filed a judgment complying with Rule 74.01(a). We dismiss the appeal without prejudice for lack of a final, appealable judgment. Separate Opinion: None This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.
Authorities Cited
Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.
Rules
- Rule 74.01cited
Rule 74.01
Cases
- bryant v city of university city 105 sw3d 855cited
Bryant v. City of University City, 105 S.W.3d 855
- city of st louis v hughes 950 sw2d 850cited
City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850
Related Opinions
Cases sharing legal topics and authorities with this opinion.
Gracie Dueker, Appellant v. Marilyn Eckelkamp, Respondent.(2005)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED85257
Brian S. Williams, Respondent, v. Imperial Homes, Inc., Appellant.(2005)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED85399
Gracie Lynn Dueker, Appellant v. Marilyn Eckelkamp, Respondent.(2005)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED85257
Stuart Guy and Cynthia Guy, Respondents v. Jeffrey M. Thomas, Defendant and Robin Thomas, Appellants.(2005)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED84816
William Robertson, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Union Electric Company d/b/a AmerenUE, et al., Defendants/Respondents.(2006)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED88210
Southwestern Bell Yellow Pages, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Adjusters, Inc., Defendant/Appellant.(2006)
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District#ED87302