In Re Marriage of Noles
343 S.W.3d 2
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mother appeals an amended judgment entered after the trial court lost jurisdiction; the original February 19, 2010 judgment is the only valid judgment.
- Trial and evidence addressed child support calculations via Form 14 and trial testimony on parents’ incomes and extraordinary expenses.
- Father filed a timely after-trial motion (treated as motion for new trial and/or to amend) seeking relief based on his 2010 income.
- Trial court issued a May 6, 2010 docket entry and letter indicating the motion was granted and the judgment would be amended.
- Amended judgment entered May 21, 2010 lowered Father’s child support and reallocated extraordinary expenses; Mother challenged these provisions on appeal.
- Court dismisses Mother’s appeal for lack of a justiciable controversy and remands to reinstate the original February 19, 2010 judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had authority to amend the judgment after 90 days | Noles argues no authority past 90 days. | Noles contends authorized after-trial motion extended authority. | Amended judgment void; authority expired. |
| Whether the May 6 ruling constituted a final ruling on the motion | Mother asserts ruling was interlocutory, not final. | Court indicated amendment would follow; not a final judgment. | Ruling did not finalize; amended judgment timely entered too late. |
| Whether the amended judgment was void and appeal dismissed for lack of controversy | Amendment altered matters not in original judgment. | Amendment validly addressed issues raised by motion. | Amended judgment null; appeal dismissed; remand to reinstate original judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cramer v. Carver, 125 S.W.3d 373 (Mo.App. W.D.2004) (judgment void if entered beyond trial court’s jurisdiction; lacking authority to review on merits)
- Herrman v. Herrman, 321 S.W.3d 450 (Mo.App. S.D.2010) (after-trial motion timing limits; amendments must occur within 90 days)
- Carson v. Brands, 7 S.W.3d 576 (Mo.App. S.D.1999) (docket entries alone may not constitute ruling on after-trial motions; amendments after 90 days invalid)