Kyle Sanford v. CenturyTel of Missouri, LLC d/b/a CenturyLink
2016 Mo. LEXIS 208
| Mo. | 2016Background
- Sanford purchased internet/phone service from CenturyLink and later sued in state court alleging unlawful surcharges under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act as a class action.
- CenturyLink sought to compel arbitration under its customer agreement; the trial court limited discovery to arbitrability and later addressed partial summary judgment on consideration and scope of the arbitration clause.
- On July 10, 2014 the trial court entered an order granting Sanford partial summary judgment on consideration and arbitrability and denied CenturyLink’s motion to compel arbitration; the court issued an ambiguous additional order four days later taking the motion under advisement but never amended the July 10 order.
- CenturyLink filed a notice of appeal under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.440 on August 18, 2014 (39 days after entry); the case reached the Missouri Supreme Court on transfer after a court of appeals opinion.
- The central procedural question was whether the interlocutory order denying arbitration was "final" for purposes of the 10-day appeal deadline in Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 81.04(a), or whether Rule 81.05(a)(1)’s 30-day delay of finality applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sanford) | Defendant's Argument (CenturyLink) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the 10‑day appeal clock run for an interlocutory order denying arbitration under § 435.440? | Order is immediately final for appeal; 10‑day filing window begins on entry. | The order should be treated as a "judgment" subject to Rule 81.05(a)(1), so finality (and the 10‑day clock) begins 30 days after entry. | The order denying arbitration is interlocutory but immediately appealable; Rule 81.05(a)(1) does not delay the 10‑day period. Appeal must be filed within 10 days of entry. |
| Whether Rule 81.05(a)(1)’s 30‑day finality delay applies to interlocutory orders made appealable by statute | N/A (Sanford contends statute makes order immediately appealable) | Rule 81.05(a)(1) applies because Rule 74.01 defines "judgment" to include any appealable order. | Rule 81.05(a)(1) is intended to preserve trial‑court power to amend final judgments; it does not apply to interlocutory orders that remain modifiable under Rule 74.01(b). |
| Effect of § 435.440 making interlocutory orders appealable on trial court's continuing jurisdiction | Statute only creates right to immediate appeal; does not convert order into final judgment. | N/A | § 435.440 permits immediate interlocutory appeal but does not change the order’s interlocutory character; trial court retains authority until final judgment absent an appeal. |
| Remedy for untimely interlocutory appeal of denial of arbitration | N/A | Timeliness is jurisdictional; untimely appeal must be dismissed. | Appeal dismissed as untimely; defendant may still raise arbitration issue on appeal from final judgment per § 512.020(5). |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. banc 1997) (final judgment defined as resolving all issues in a case)
- Ndegwa v. KSSO, LLC, 371 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. banc 2012) (final judgment prerequisite to appellate review)
- Motormax Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Knight, 474 S.W.3d 164 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015) (court of appeals treated interlocutory arbitration order as subject to 30‑day delay; overruled to extent inconsistent)
- Nicholson v. Surrey Vacation Resorts, Inc., 463 S.W.3d 358 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015) (interlocutory orders are modifiable at any time before final judgment)
- Hershewe v. Alexander, 264 S.W.3d 717 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008) (order denying motion to compel arbitration is immediately appealable and appeal must be filed within ten days)