In Re The Marriage Of Anthony Long v. Eliza Machado Long
469 S.W.3d 10
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Father petitioned for dissolution of marriage on Aug 30, 2012; pendente lite orders set child support, maintenance, fees.
- Contempt petition followed Mother's pendente lite application; trial court issued contempt judgment Apr 10, 2014 for nonpayment.
- Contempt judgment authorized imprisonment until purge by paying $12,044; Father was incarcerated on Apr 10, 2014.
- Father filed notice of appeal on Apr 30, 2014 challenging the contempt judgment; timing is central to jurisdiction.
- Appellate court sua sponte addressed jurisdiction and timeliness of appeal, citing Rule 81.04 and related rules.
- Court dismissed the appeal as untimely because notice of appeal filed more than ten days after enforcement finality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the contempt judgment was final and appealable for timely appeal. | Long argues delay in appeal due to finality timing. | Long contends judgment was final after 30-day period under Rule 75.01/81.05. | Appeal untimely; contempt judgment became final upon enforcement. |
| Whether the Contempt Judgment was interlocutory or final for appeal purposes. | Long asserts Rule 74.01(a) applies because judgment was final earlier. | Contempt judgment is interlocutory at entry and final upon enforcement. | Contempt judgment was interlocutory upon entry and final after imprisonment/enforcement. |
| Whether Rule 81.04(a) time for filing appeal applies to civil contempt judgments. | Long argues timely filing within 10 days after finalization. | Time runs after enforcement makes judgment final and appealable. | Ten-day window applied after enforcement, so filing on Apr 30, 2014 was untimely. |
| Whether prior pendente lite judgment viability affects appeal timeliness. | Long may challenge pendente lite order as void. | Contempt appeal limited to final/enforceable judgment; pendente lite issues not controlling. | Issue not reaching due to untimeliness; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Crow and Gilmore, 103 S.W.3d 778 (Mo. banc 2003) (civil contempt final upon enforcement; interlocutory judgment becomes final and appealable when enforced)
- Carothers v. Carothers, 337 S.W.3d 21 (Mo. banc 2011) (contempt order final and appealable after enforcement; timely notice within 10 days of finalization)
- State ex rel. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Bland, 88 S.W. 28 (Mo. banc 1905) (recognition of right to appeal civil contempt judgments as final judgments)
- Spicer v. Donald N. Spicer Revocable Living Trust, 336 S.W.3d 466 (Mo. banc 2011) (timeliness and finality principles for notices of appeal in civil matters)
- State ex rel. Coca-Cola Co v. Nixon, 249 S.W.3d 855 (Mo. banc 2008) (statutory framework for appeal rights in civil actions)
- In re Relaxation, Inc. v. RIS, Inc., 452 S.W.3d 743 (Mo. App. W.D. 2015) (dismissed appeal due to untimely notice after enforcement of contempt)