Sabrina Zeller v. Cameron Scafe
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 218
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On May 12, 2012, Cody Turner attended a keg party at Cameron Scafe’s house where Scafe allegedly allowed minors, including Brian Beebe, to possess and consume alcohol.
- After the party, Beebe drove a Jeep with Turner as a passenger, lost control, the vehicle overturned, Turner was ejected, severely injured, and later died.
- Zeller (plaintiff ad litem for Turner) sued multiple parties alleging negligence and negligence per se; she later settled with several defendants and amended to assert claims against Scafe (negligence per se) and Kantner (negligence, wrongful death).
- Kantner filed counterclaims against Zeller; motions to dismiss were filed by Scafe and Kantner. The trial court dismissed Zeller’s and Kantner’s claims against Scafe but left Kantner’s claims against Zeller pending.
- The trial court entered a document titled “judgment” dismissing claims against Scafe but did not resolve Kantner’s pending claims against Zeller nor expressly state there was no just reason for delay under Rule 74.01(b).
- The Court of Appeals dismissed Zeller’s appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment because the partial dismissal was not certified for immediate appeal and did not dispose of all parties’ claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the May 7, 2014 judgment is a final, appealable judgment | Zeller argued the document denominated "judgment" was final and appealable | Scafe argued the judgment was not final because Kantner’s claims against Zeller remained pending and the court did not certify no just reason for delay | Court held the judgment was not final/appealable and dismissed the appeal |
| Whether Rule 74.01(b) certification is required for partial judgments | Zeller implied the judgment nomenclature sufficed | Scafe argued Rule 74.01(b) certification (no just reason for delay) is required for appeal of partial dispositions | Court held Rule 74.01(b) certification (or full resolution) is required; mere denomination as "judgment" is insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Crest Const. II, Inc. v. Hart, 439 S.W.3d 246 (Mo. App. 2014) (appealability requires final judgment disposing of all issues and parties or Rule 74.01(b) certification)
- Ameriquest Mortg. Co. v. Gehrig, 245 S.W.3d 239 (Mo. App. 2007) (partial judgments not certified under Rule 74.01(b) are not appealable)
- Davis v. St. Luke's Home Health Care, 200 S.W.3d 592 (Mo. App. 2006) (same principle regarding appealability of partial dispositions)
- ABB, Inc. v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., 390 S.W.3d 196 (Mo. App. 2012) (trial court’s certification under Rule 74.01(b) is not dispositive; substance of order determines appealability)