Skip to content
Ott Law Firm

Woodglen Estates Association vs. Della Joan Dulaney, et al

Decision date: April 21, 2015WD77891

Parties & Roles

Judges

Trial Court Judge
Kenneth R

Disposition

Affirmed

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.

Related Legal Help

Researching a similar corporate law issue?

This archive page is for legal research. For a practical overview of claims, deadlines, evidence, and next steps, start with the related practice page.

Syllabus

WOODGLEN ESTATES ASSOCIATION,

Respondent,

v.

DELLA JOAN DULANEY, ET AL.,

Appellants.

          

WD77891

OPINION FILED:

April 21, 2015

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri The Honorable Kenneth R. Garrett, Judge

Before Division One: James Edward Welsh, P.J., Thomas H. Newton, and Karen King Mitchell, JJ.

Della Joan Dulaney and Everett W. Dulaney, co-trustees of the Della Joan Dulaney Trust, appeal the circuit court's denial of their motion for reconsideration to enforce a 2013 settlement agreement regarding an action that was disposed of in 2012 when this court affirmed a judgment entered by the circuit court awarding Woodglen Estates Association $54,500 in damages and cost and attorney's fees. Woodglen Estates Ass'n v. Dulaney, 359 S.W.3d 508 (Mo. App. 2012). We dismiss the Dulaneys' appeal, however, because the Dulaneys are appealing from a motion that is not authorized by rule or law.

2 "'[A] motion for reconsideration has no legal effect because no Missouri rule provides for such a motion.'" 1 McElroy v. Eagle Star Group, Inc., 156 S.W.3d 392, 402 (Mo. App. 2005), superseded in part by Rule as stated in Pyle v. FirstLine Transp. Sec., Inc., 230 S.W.3d 52, 58 n.3 (Mo. App. 2007) (quoting Hinton v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc., 99 S.W.3d 454, 459 (Mo. App. 2003)). Although we recognize that appellate courts have treated motions for reconsideration as motions for new trial so that appellants are not denied substantive review of appeals, Hinton, 99 S.W.3d at 459, Koerber by and through Ellegood v. Alendo Bldg. Co., 846 S.W.2d 729, 730 (Mo. App. 1992), we cannot extend that same courtesy in this case because there is nothing from which the Dulaneys can file a motion for new trial. Indeed, the judgment in this case was final in 2012. 2 We, therefore, dismiss the Dulaneys' appeal.

/s/JAMES EDWARD WELSH James Edward Welsh, Presiding Judge

All concur.

1 We recognize that the circuit court denominated its order as a "Judgment" and that it said that the denial of the motion for reconsideration was "the final order of the Court regarding this matter," but those declarations do not make the denial of a motion for reconsideration an appealable order.

2 We note that the Dulaneys may have a separate cause of action for specific performance of the settlement agreement. See Voyles v. Voyles, 388 S.W.3d 169 (Mo. App. 2012). "[T]he question of whether the parties entered into an enforceable settlement agreement is governed by contract law." Id. at 172. "To show a legal, valid settlement agreement, one must prove the essential elements of a contract: offer, acceptance and consideration. The creation of a valid settlement agreement requires a meeting of the minds and a mutual assent to the essential terms of the agreement." Id. (citations omitted).

Authorities Cited

Statutes, rules, and cases referenced in this opinion.

Cases

Related Opinions

Other opinions in the same practice area.

Christopher Hanshaw, Appellant, vs. Crown Equipment Corp., et al., Respondents.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101091

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's decision to exclude Hanshaw's expert witness testimony and grant summary judgment to Crown Equipment in a product liability case involving an allegedly defectively designed forklift. The expert's opinions were properly excluded because they were not supported by reliable methodology, as the expert performed no tests and failed to demonstrate how cited research and data supported his conclusions.

Injured in a similar issue?

Call now or send the claim details with this opinion context preserved.

Read The Personal Injury GuideGuide
Civil Litigationmajority2,703 words
Read opinion
remanded

The court affirmed the directed verdict as to four counts against Norman based on agency but vacated and remanded the defamation counts against Kaminsky and one count against Norman, finding that the circuit court erred in requiring independent evidence of reputational damage beyond the plaintiff's own testimony when the evidence of harm was substantial and directly resulted from the defendants' statements.

per_curiam4,488 words
Read opinion

Appellants sought damages for a wrongful death resulting from a motor vehicle collision involving a pursued driver, alleging the Missouri State Highway Patrol's pursuit was negligent and proximately caused the collision. The court affirmed summary judgment for MSHP, finding that Appellants failed to produce sufficient facts demonstrating that MSHP's actions were the proximate cause of the collision, which is a necessary element of their case.

Injured in a similar issue?

Call now or send the claim details with this opinion context preserved.

Read The Car Accidents GuideGuide
Personal InjuryWrongful Deathper_curiam3,654 words
Read opinion