410 S.W.3d 743
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiffs Ronald and Patricia Basta filed a wrongful-death suit after their son was electrocuted on the Blankenships’ roof; they voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice on January 10, 2012.
- The trial court entered a dismissal the next day that stated costs were taxed against the plaintiffs.
- Defendants (KCP&L and the Blankenships) submitted bills of costs; plaintiffs objected, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction after the voluntary dismissal and that certain deposition cost certificates were untimely/insufficient.
- Plaintiffs re-filed the same claim in the same court on February 9, 2012; defendants sought to stay the re-filed case and collect unpaid costs from the dismissed action under Rule 67.02(d) and §514.180.
- The clerk and trial court repeatedly re-taxed and reviewed costs; ultimately the trial court entered an Order Taxing Costs Against Plaintiffs on November 6, 2012, from which the Basta plaintiffs appealed.
- The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the post-dismissal order on costs did not follow a final appealable judgment (the original dismissal was without prejudice and not final).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to tax costs after a voluntary dismissal without prejudice | Basta: dismissal ended court's jurisdiction; taxing costs was improper once suit dismissed | Defendants: court retained limited ministerial jurisdiction to tax costs and could enforce costs against re-filed action | Held: Dismissal without prejudice is not a final judgment; order taxing costs did not follow a final judgment and is not appealable; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the taxing order was a final, appealable judgment | Basta: the November 6 order is not an appealable final judgment | Defendants: order is appealable as a post-judgment special order taxing costs | Held: Order was not denominated "judgment" or "decree" and did not resolve all issues; not final or an appealable special order under §512.020(5) |
| Whether plaintiffs could challenge deposition cost certificates as improper grounds to deny costs | Basta: court reporter certificates were untimely/insufficient under Rule 57.031 | Defendants: certificates were proper and costs allowable | Held: Court did not reach merits because appellate jurisdiction lacking; procedural mechanism exists (e.g., extraordinary writ) if ministerial duties improperly performed |
| Availability of alternative remedies when appeal is unavailable | Basta: (implied) seek appellate review of costs order | Defendants: (implied) rely on statutory cost collection and stay authority | Held: Although appeal unavailable, plaintiffs may seek extraordinary writ relief to challenge ministerial failures in taxation of costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Ndegwa v. KSSO, LLC, 371 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. banc 2012) (final judgment is prerequisite to appellate review)
- Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. banc 1997) (final judgment must resolve all issues; form/label insufficient)
- A.L. v. Peeler, 969 S.W.2d 262 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) (post-dismissal cost order is not an appealable special order when dismissal without prejudice is not final)
- Chaney v. Gray, 898 S.W.2d 577 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (after-judgment order on costs can be an appealable special order—but only if it follows a final judgment)
- Blechle v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 28 S.W.3d 484 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (discussing finality and appealability of judgments)
- State ex rel. Westmoreland v. O’Bannon, 87 S.W.3d 31 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (right to appeal is statutory and limited to final judgments or authorized special orders)
- Fisher v. Spray Planes, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 628 (Mo. App. E.D. 1991) (taxing of costs by clerk and review by court are ministerial duties)
- State ex rel. City of Blue Springs v. Schieber, 343 S.W.3d 686 (Mo. App. W.D. 2011) (extraordinary writ available to compel performance of ministerial duties)