Gerken v. Missouri Department of Social Services, Family Support Division
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1456
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Pensioners sued Missouri Family Support Division and the Director of the Department of Social Services in 2006 for declaratory relief and damages to recover unpaid benefits from the Blind Pension Fund.
- Gerken I (2009) and Gerken II (2011) remanded the case, with Gerken II guiding damages limits, prejudgment interest recalculation, and later instruction to develop a claims process and address any surplus.
- On remand, the trial court held a hearing, accepted stipulations and proposed damage calculations, and entered a so‑called partial judgment awarding damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees but not resolving the claims process or surplus disposition.
- The trial court acknowledged the partial judgment resolved liability and accounting but not the establishment of a process for class members to submit claims or surplus disposition, yet certified the judgment as final under Rule 74.01(b).
- Pensioners challenged the judgment on appeal, and the court of appeals conducted a jurisdictional review under Rule 74.01(b) and related authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the partial judgment is a final, appealable judgment under Rule 74.01(b) | Pensioners contend the judgment resolves liability and damages elements. | Division argues the judgment does not dispose of a distinct judicial unit because remand issues remain. | No final judgment; jurisdiction lacking. |
| Whether the trial court complied with the remand mandate to develop a claims process and address surplus | Pensioners rely on Gerken II's directive to implement a claims process and surplus disposition. | Division maintains the record reflects progress toward remand goals but incomplete remedy steps. | Trial court failed to follow mandate; remand required. |
Key Cases Cited
- ABB, Inc. v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 390 S.W.3d 196 (Mo.App.W.D. 2012) (finality requires disposition of a distinct judicial unit)
- Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. banc 1997) (defines 'judicial unit' and finality principles)
- Gerken II v. Sherman, 351 S.W.3d 1 (Mo.App.W.D. 2011) (mandate to develop claims process and address surplus; remand directive)
- Motor Control Specialities, Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm’n, 323 S.W.3d 843 (Mo.App.W.D. 2010) (mandate limits and authority on remand; compliance review)
- Pope v. Ray, 298 S.W.3d 53 (Mo.App.W.D. 2009) (mandate interpretation and how remand directs trial court actions)
- West v. Sharp Bonding Agency, Inc., 327 S.W.3d 7 (Mo.App.W.D. 2010) (independent determination of finality for Rule 74.01(b) judgments)
- Lombardo v. Lombardo, 120 S.W.3d 232 (Mo.App.W.D. 2003) (risk of error when not addressing the mandate's full scope)
- Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vulgamott, 96 S.W.3d 96 (Mo.App.W.D. 2003) (single judicial unit concept for appealability)
- Davis v. St. Luke’s Home Health Care, 200 S.W.3d 592 (Mo.App.W.D. 2006) (oppose piecemeal appeals; judicial economy considerations)