Hanna v. Hanna
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1230
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Husband and Wife married in 1997; Wife filed for dissolution in Nov. 2010 requesting property division, maintenance, attorney fees, and restoration of her maiden name (Hinton).
- Trial occurred Feb–Mar 2013; the circuit court entered its original judgment on May 14, 2013, denying maintenance, attorney fees, and (by a catch-all clause) all claims not specifically granted.
- Wife filed a motion to amend the judgment on June 13, 2013. The court entered an amended judgment on Sept. 11, 2013 (91 days after the motion).
- Wife appealed both the original and amended judgments; the court of appeals consolidated the appeals and reviewed whether the amended judgment was valid and whether the maiden-name denial was erroneous.
- The court held the amended judgment to be a nullity because it was entered after the 90-day post-motion period expired, so the original May 14, 2013 judgment is the operative judgment; the court reversed the denial of the maiden-name restoration and modified the judgment to restore Wife’s maiden name.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of amended judgment (jurisdiction/90-day rule) | The amended judgment is invalid because the court lost jurisdiction after the 90-day period expired; review should be of the original judgment. | The original judgment was not final (left issue pending), so the 90-day limit did not apply. | Amended judgment is a nullity; original May 14, 2013 judgment is final and reviewed. |
| Whether original judgment was final despite not expressly addressing maiden-name request | The original judgment’s silence meant the request remained pending. | The original judgment’s catch-all denial (“All other claims for relief not specifically granted are denied”) disposed of the maiden-name request, making the judgment final. | The catch-all clause denied the request; the original judgment was final. |
| Restoration of maiden name | Denial was erroneous; where no evidence of detriment exists, denial is error and name should be restored. | (Implicit) Court properly denied relief. | Court reversed the denial and modified the judgment to restore Wife’s maiden name. |
| Rule 74.06 (nunc pro tunc) clerical-error defense for amended judgment | (Husband) Any omission was clerical and correctable under Rule 74.06(a). | (Court addressed) The change was substantive, not clerical; amended judgment altered the actual judicial decision and added findings. | Rule 74.06 did not authorize the post-90-day amended judgment because it attempted to correct judicial, not clerical, errors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Medlin v. RLC, Inc., 423 S.W.3d 276 (Mo. App. 2014) (after-trial motions extend court control up to 90 days)
- Spicer v. Donald N. Spicer Revocable Living Trust, 336 S.W.3d 466 (Mo. banc 2011) (judgment becomes final on 90th day and court loses jurisdiction)
- Adkins v. Hontz, 337 S.W.3d 711 (Mo. App. 2011) (amended judgment entered after 90-day period is a nullity)
- Gipson v. Fox, 248 S.W.3d 641 (Mo. App. 2008) (Rule 78.06 time limits do not apply where no final judgment exists because issues remain pending)
- Alliett & Williams v. Tri-City Constr. Co., 694 S.W.2d 287 (Mo. App. 1985) (court’s silence may indicate issue remains pending)
- Neal v. Neal, 941 S.W.2d 501 (Mo. banc 1997) (denial of maiden-name restoration is error absent evidence of detriment)
- King v. King, 66 S.W.3d 28 (Mo. App. 2001) (same principle regarding name restoration)
- Johnson v. Brown, 154 S.W.3d 448 (Mo. App. 2005) (Rule 74.06 limited to clerical errors; cannot alter judicial determinations)
- Pirtle v. Cook, 956 S.W.2d 235 (Mo. banc 1997) (nunc pro tunc corrects the record to reflect the true judicial determination)