Doster, Guin, James, Ullom, Benson & Mundorf, LLC v. Haverty
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1393
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Haverty was a member of Law Firm handling GK1’s case for unpaid fees.
- Law Firm sued GK1; Haverty appeared for GK1 in that suit.
- Haverty admitted GK1 paid fees to him but deposited funds into his personal account and did not remit to Law Firm.
- Haverty signed a consent judgment to pay Law Firm $10,000 to dismiss GK1’s claims; consent filed June 7, 2011.
- On April 26, 2011, Law Firm dismissed GK1 and added Haverty as a defendant; Haverty filed an answer, counterclaim, and motion for continuance by fax on June 6, 2011; the consent judgment was filed June 7, 2011.
- The motion to vacate the consent judgment was filed July 7–8, 2011 (facsimile shows July 7); the trial court denied as moot on January 26, 2012, holding jurisdiction ended July 7, 2011; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the order denying the motion to vacate is a final, appealable judgment | Haverty argues a pending counterclaim negates finality | Law Firm argues no final judgment since counterclaim remained | Appeal dismissed for lack of a final, appealable judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Boley v. Knowles, 905 S.W.2d 86 (Mo. banc 1995) (final judgment prerequisite to appeal; disposes of all issues)
- Jon E. Fuhrer Co. v. Gerhardt, 955 S.W.2d 212 (Mo.App. E.D.1997) (appealability requires a signed judgment)
- City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850 (Mo. banc 1997) (appealability requires final judgment)
- Columbia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Epstein, 200 S.W.3d 547 (Mo.App. E.D.2006) (need disposure of pending counterclaim for finality)