566 S.W.3d 596
Mo.2019Background
- Jennifer Henderson sued the Business Loop Community Improvement District and individual defendants challenging a CID sales tax election under the CID Act in Boone County Circuit Court.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; the circuit court entered a docketed order titled "Order ... Granting Business Loop CID’s Motion to Dismiss," stating the cause was "dismissed in its entirety without prejudice" and taxing costs to Henderson.
- Henderson moved to reconsider, sought writs of prohibition in the court of appeals and this Court (both denied), and unsuccessfully asked the circuit court to denominate the dismissal as a "judgment."
- Henderson attempted to appeal to this Court, which dismissed for lack of an appealable judgment; she again sought designation of the order as a judgment in circuit court and by petition to the court of appeals (denied).
- Henderson petitioned this Court for mandamus directing the judge to enter a judgment; this Court issued a preliminary writ and now makes it permanent, directing the judge to sign and file a writing denominated "judgment" disposing of Henderson’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court’s dismissal order constituted a judgment | Henderson: the dismissal resolved all claims and should be denominated a judgment to permit appeal | Defendants/Respondent: the writing need not be treated as a denominated judgment (or court declined to so denominate it) | The dismissal resolved all claims and therefore was a judgment; the court must sign and file a writing denominated "judgment." |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel the judge to enter a judgment | Henderson: mandamus is proper because judge refused the ministerial duty to denominate and file a judgment | Respondent: discretionary refusal or procedural posture bars mandamus remedy | Mandamus is appropriate to compel performance of the ministerial duty to sign and file a judgment where the court already resolved the claims. |
| Whether "with prejudice" vs "without prejudice" affects duty to denominate a judgment | Henderson: the label should not prevent entry of a judgment; appealability can be addressed separately | Respondent: the designation may affect appealability or preclusion and could justify refusal | The distinction affects appealability and claim preclusion but does not alter the obligation to denominate and enter a judgment. |
| Whether a judgment must be signed and filed and denominated as such | Henderson: a judgment requires proper denomination, signature, and filing to be entered | Respondent: (implicit) the docket entry or order was sufficient without the formal "judgment" label | Court: A judgment must be in writing, signed by the judge, and denominated "judgment" (and is entered when signed and filed). |
Key Cases Cited
- Furlong Cos., Inc. v. City of Kan. City, 189 S.W.3d 157 (Mo. banc 2006) (mandamus compels performance of ministerial duties; litigant must show clear, specific right)
- State ex rel. Koster v. ConocoPhillips Co., 493 S.W.3d 397 (Mo. banc 2016) (discussion of final judgment concept and incorporation of prior orders)
- Ndegwa v. KSSO, LLC, 371 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. banc 2012) (Rule 74.01(b) and when partial judgments are final for appeal)
- Mahoney v. Doerhoff Surgical Servs., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. banc 1991) (dismissal that resolves the plaintiff’s claim can be final and appealable)
- Chromalloy Am. Corp. v. Elyria Foundry Co., 955 S.W.2d 1 (Mo. banc 1997) (addressing the rule on dismissals without prejudice and appealability)
- Naylor Senior Citizens Hous., LP v. Sides Constr. Co., Inc., 423 S.W.3d 238 (Mo. banc 2014) (noting uncertainty and limited utility of the general rule that dismissals without prejudice are not appealable)