513 S.W.3d 373
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Amoso Realty (Amoso) sued tenant Monique Milton for rent and possession, alleging it acted as agent for property owner Bryce Weathers.
- Milton counterclaimed against Amoso and Weathers for negligence (failure to exterminate bed bugs) and retaliation.
- The trial court granted leave for Milton to file a third-party petition against Weathers, but Weathers was never served and did not become a party.
- Amoso and Milton filed a joint stipulation dismissing Amoso’s claims against Milton with prejudice and dismissing Milton’s claims against Amoso with prejudice and against Weathers without prejudice; the docket entry read "Dismissed by Parties."
- Weathers moved to intervene, alleging Amoso settled for its and Milton’s benefit without his consent, breaching fiduciary duties.
- The trial court denied intervention, reasoning the December 18, 2015 stipulation was an effective voluntary dismissal under Rule 67.02(a) and that the court lacked jurisdiction; the written order did not say "judgment," though the docket entry stated "SEE ORDER AND JUDGMENT."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Weathers) | Defendant's Argument (Amoso/Milton/Respondent) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction because a final appealable judgment exists | The trial-court order denying intervention is a final, appealable judgment permitting review | The dismissal was a Rule 67.02(a) voluntary dismissal and the trial-court written order was not denominated "judgment," so no final appealable judgment exists | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: no final judgment because the written order was not denominated "judgment" and the docket entry was unsigned/typewritten, failing Rule 74.01(a) signing requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Koster v. ConocoPhillips Co., 493 S.W.3d 397 (Mo. banc 2016) (appellate jurisdiction and duty to determine appealability)
- Buemi v. Kerckhoff, 359 S.W.3d 16 (Mo. banc 2011) (right to appeal is statutory; final judgment prerequisite)
- City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850 (Mo. banc 1997) (requirement that trial-court writing be denominated "judgment" is a bright-line rule)
- SLJ v. RJ, 101 S.W.3d 339 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (written order not denominated "judgment" and unsigned docket entry cannot combine to create final judgment)
- Orf v. Orf, 208 S.W.3d 306 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (followed SLJ where order lacked denomination and docket entry lacked signature, depriving appellate jurisdiction)
- Basta v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 410 S.W.3d 743 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (definition of final judgment resolving all issues)
- Kearns v. New York Cmty. Bank, 389 S.W.3d 294 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (discussing signature/initials requirement for docket entries)