Valerie May Palmer, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants v. Roberto Grajeda, Jr., Defendant/Respondent.
Decision date: UnknownED89357
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: Valerie May Palmer, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants v. Roberto Grajeda, Jr., Defendant/Respondent. Case Number: ED89357 Handdown Date: 06/29/2007 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Hon. Richard Zerr Counsel for Appellant: Aaron M. Staebell Counsel for Respondent: Benicia Ann Baker-Livorsi Opinion Summary: Valerie Palmer, on behalf of minor Kayla Grajeda and herself, appeals from a judgment granting the motion for temporary stay filed by Roberto Grajeda, Jr. In December 2006, Palmer sought to determine a father-child relationship for her child with Grajeda, for child custody and for child support. Grajeda moved to dismiss alleging that he previously sought an emergency order of protection and for child custody in an Illinois court on November 2006. In January 2007, the Missouri circuit court entered an order and judgment concluding that it had jurisdiction, but that Illinois appropriately exercised emergency jurisdiction. The Missouri circuit court concluded that Illinois was a more convenient forum to exercise jurisdiction and the best interest of the child would be served by Illinois exercising jurisdiction. The Missouri circuit court ordered that its proceeding be immediately stayed "until the entry of a final custodial decree in Illinois or the dismissal of all relevant custodial actions in Illinois." Palmer appeals. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: There is no final, appealable judgment where the court's judgment simply stayed all proceedings in Missouri until the entry of a final, custodial decree in Illinois or the dismissal of custodial actions in Illinois. Such a judgment does not resolve even one claim in the Missouri petition and only stays all proceedings in Missouri.
Citation: Opinion Author: Booker T. Shaw, C.J. Opinion Vote: APPEAL DISMISSED. Norton, J., and Cohen, J. Opinion: Valerie Palmer, on behalf of minor Kayla Grajeda and herself, (Appellants) appeals from a judgment granting the motion for temporary stay filed by Roberto Grajeda, Jr. (Respondent)(FN1). Because there is no final, appealable judgment, we dismiss the appeal. On December 8, 2006, Appellants filed a petition in St. Charles County Circuit Court to determine a father-child relationship, for child custody, and for child support. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition, alleging that he had filed a petition for an emergency order of protection and for child custody in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois on November 29, 2006. On January 12, 2007, the circuit court entered an order and judgment concluding that Missouri had jurisdiction under the UCCJA, section 452.440 et. seq., RSMO, but that Illinois appropriately exercised emergency jurisdiction in Cook County. The court concluded that Illinois was a more convenient forum to exercise jurisdiction and the best interest of the child would be served by Illinois exercising jurisdiction. The court ordered that the Missouri proceeding be immediately stayed "until the entry of a final custodial decree in Illinois or the dismissal of all relevant custodial actions in Illinois." Appellants filed this appeal. This Court has an obligation to examine whether it has jurisdiction sua sponte. Typically, an appellate court only has jurisdiction over final judgments that dispose of all issues and parties and leave nothing for future determination. Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239, 244 (Mo. banc 1997); Rule 74.01(b). Moreover, for a judgment to be appealable, it must be one that finally disposes of at least one claim on the merits and not a ruling on miscellaneous issues that does not resolve even one claim. Id. "A judgment which resolves fewer than all legal issues as to any single 'claim for relief' is not final . . . ." Committee for Educational Equality v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. banc 1994). Here, the judgment in question did not resolve any of the issues or claims raised in the petition concerning paternity, custody or child support. The judgment simply stayed all proceedings pending the issuance of a final custodial decree in Illinois or a dismissal of the custodial actions in Illinois. This is not a final judgment from which an appeal lies.
This Court issued an order directing Appellants to show cause why their appeal should not be dismissed. Appellants have not filed a response. The appeal is dismissed without prejudice for lack of a final, appealable judgment. Footnote: FN1. Several pleadings also spell the parties' last name as "Grejada." We use the spelling that is used by the trial court on the judgment in question. 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.