530 S.W.3d 516
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Kellie Dickson operated an unlicensed child-care facility (Lit’l Bits) in Barry County for decades; DHSS received complaints and investigated multiple times between 2008–2013.
- DHSS repeatedly notified the Barry County prosecutor (seven times between 2011–2013) that Dickson was operating without a license; the prosecutor did not act.
- DHSS (through the Attorney General) filed a petition for injunctive relief in 2013 seeking to enjoin Dickson until she complied with the Child Care Act. DHSS later waived a preliminary injunction and sought bench trial.
- The Barry County prosecutor moved to intervene under §210.245.5; the trial court granted intervention and later granted the prosecutor oversight of Dickson’s facility rather than entering DHSS’s requested injunction.
- The trial court’s April 18, 2016 “First Amended Judgment, Order and Injunction” ordered Dickson to complete 16 specific compliance tasks by July 1, 2016, reserved whether DHSS must issue a license or Dickson must pursue administrative process, and contemplated further hearings to determine “substantial compliance.”
- DHSS appealed from that judgment, challenging (1) the grant of intervention/denial of its injunction and (2) the court’s conclusion that DHSS lacked authority to promulgate certain licensing qualifications. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment because the trial court left issues for future determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by granting county prosecutor oversight/intervention and denying DHSS’s request for an injunction | DHSS: prosecutor’s intervention was untimely/limited by statute and court should have entered injunction enforcing licensing requirements | Prosecutor: statutory right to intervene under §210.245.5 supports oversight; trial court may fashion supervisory relief | Court: appeal not considered on merits—trial court’s order was not final (left substantial compliance and licensing questions for future hearing); appeal dismissed for lack of final judgment |
| Whether DHSS may promulgate and enforce rules establishing qualifications for licensure applicants | DHSS: statutory authority under §210.221 supports promulgation and enforcement of licensing qualifications | Trial court: apparently found limits on DHSS authority; reserved whether court could order licensing or require administrative process | Court: did not reach merits; reserved for trial court; appeal dismissed as nonfinal |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson v. Brewer, 952 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. banc 1997) (final judgment must resolve all issues and leave nothing for future determination)
- In re Marriage of Erickson, 419 S.W.3d 836 (Mo.App. S.D. 2013) (temporary orders generally not subject to review)
- Modern Motors, L.L.C. v. Gerber, 505 S.W.3d 302 (Mo.App. W.D. 2016) (no final judgment where decision is subject to revision before all claims adjudicated)
- First Nat’l Bank of Dieterich v. Pointe Royale Property Owners’ Ass’n, Inc., 515 S.W.3d 219 (Mo. banc 2017) (judgment resolving only part of claims generally is not final)
- City of Kansas City v. Boss, 508 S.W.3d 189 (Mo.App. W.D. 2017) (appellate jurisdiction depends on existence of final judgment)