State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, Family Support Division v. Kenneth Schauer
503 S.W.3d 272
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Kenneth and Lisa Schauer divorced in 2002; the dissolution required Kenneth to pay $400/month in child support.
- The Family Support Division initiated administrative modification procedures and an administrative hearing was held on September 28, 2010.
- The hearing officer found a substantial and continuing change and set a presumed support amount of $714/month; Schauer did not seek judicial review of that administrative decision.
- The Division filed a Motion to Review and Approve the proposed modification; on March 25, 2011, the Nodaway County Circuit Court entered an order adopting the $714/month modification; Schauer did not appeal that order.
- Schauer later filed a Rule 74.06(b) motion (fraud) in 2012 (denied 2013), then a Motion to Vacate Judgment of Modification for Lack of Jurisdiction in December 2015; the circuit court denied that motion by an order dated January 28, 2016.
- Schauer appealed the denial; the appellate court sua sponte determined it first must decide whether a final, appealable judgment existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2011 modification was void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction | Schauer: circuit court lacked jurisdiction to modify child support, so the 2011 modification is void | Division/Respondent: modification was properly entered following administrative proceeding; Schauer failed to timely seek review | Court treated Schauer's motion as Rule 74.06(b)(4) and did not reach merits because appeal lacked a final judgment |
| Whether the denial of Schauer's Motion to Vacate is appealable | Schauer: denial should be reviewable on appeal | Respondent: (implicitly) appellate review requires a final, denominated judgment | Court dismissed appeal without prejudice because the January 28, 2016 order denying relief was not denominated a "judgment" or "decree," so no final, appealable judgment existed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bate v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 464 S.W.3d 515 (Mo. banc 2015) (a judgment is void under Rule 74.06(b)(4) when court lacked subject-matter or personal jurisdiction or violated due process)
- Ndegwa v. KSSO, LLC, 371 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. banc 2012) (final judgment is a prerequisite to appellate review)
- G.H. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 412 S.W.3d 326 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (trial court must denominate its final ruling as a "judgment" or "decree")
- City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850 (Mo. banc 1997) (the denomination requirement establishes a bright-line test for when a writing is a judgment)
- Snelling v. Michelin N. Am., Inc., 213 S.W.3d 201 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007) (an order denying a Rule 74.06(b)(4) motion must be denominated a judgment to be appealable)