OTT LAW

Virginia Perryman, Respondent, v. Amos Perryman, Jr., Appellant.

Decision date: UnknownED77392

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: Virginia Perryman, Respondent, v. Amos Perryman, Jr., Appellant. Case Number: ED77392 Handdown Date: 01/23/2001 Appeal From: Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Hon. Michael T. Jamison Counsel for Appellant: Theodore S. Schechter and Michael L. Schechter Counsel for Respondent: David G. Waltrip and Chad S. Stockel Opinion Summary: Husband Amos Perryman, Jr. appeals the judgment entered enforcing a separation agreement in this dissolution of marriage proceeding. DISMISSED. Division Five holds: The trial court never entered a decree of dissolution resolving all the issues in the case. Therefore, there is no final appealable judgment. Citation: Opinion Author: Robert E. Crist, Senior Judge Opinion Vote: DISMISSED. Hoff, C.J., and Crane, J., concur. Opinion: Amos Perryman, Jr. (Husband) appeals the judgment entered enforcing a separation agreement in this dissolution of marriage proceeding. Because the judgment is not final, we dismiss the appeal. Virginia Perryman (Wife) filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on August 20, 1998. The trial court scheduled trial for February 16, 1999. On that day, Husband and Wife had settlement negotiations and executed a "Memorandum of Agreement" purporting to settle the dissolution of marriage action. A trial was not held, but a hearing about the "Memorandum of Agreement" was held. Afterward, the trial court ordered the parties to prepare a separation agreement

and judgment. Husband subsequently repudiated the agreement and refused to sign a formal separation agreement. Wife filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. After a trial on the motion, the trial court entered a judgment granting Wife's motion to enforce the separation agreement. However, the trial court failed to enter a decree of dissolution in the case. Instead, the trial court stated it "will enter a Decree of dissolution based upon the written Separation Agreement. . . ." (emphasis added). This Court issued an order asking Appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of a final appealable judgment. Appellant failed to file a decree of dissolution. Instead, Appellant contended the judgment to enforce the separation was final and appealable even without the entry of a decree of dissolution. We must disagree. An appellate court has jurisdiction only over final judgments. Section 512.020, RSMo 1994. A final judgment is one that disposes of all parties and issues in the case and leaves nothing for future determination. Thomas v. Nicks, 867 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Mo. App. E.D. 1993). Here, the trial court has failed to resolve all the issues in the case because it never entered a decree of dissolution. While the court announced its intention to issue a decree, it never entered it. This leaves issues for future determination and thus, the judgment cannot be final. In addition, the trial court did not certify its judgment for appeal under Rule 74.01(b) for "no just reason for delay." Without a final appealable judgment, we must dismiss the appeal. Appeal 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

affirmed
family-lawmajority5,654 words

L.J.F. vs. J.F.G.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 10, 2026#WD87987

affirmed

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.

family-lawper_curiam4,882 words

In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble vs. Bradford R. Noble(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#WD87485

affirmed

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.

family-lawmajority8,056 words

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

reversed

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.

family-lawper_curiam3,296 words

M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 10, 2026#ED113141

affirmed

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.

family-lawmajority3,425 words