692 S.W.2d 635 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1985
Appellant, Leland Forney, appeals from the order of the trial court finding him in civil contempt. We dismiss the appeal without prejudice as premature.
The marriage of Leland Forney and respondent, Beverly (Forney) Niehoff, was dissolved in 1978. Respondent was awarded the primary care, custody and control of the children born of the marriage. In 1984 respondent brought this contempt proceeding
An evidentiary hearing was held and the trial court entered its judgment which provided that appellant was found “guilty of contempt of this Court because of said refusal to comply with said order, and that he is committed to the _ County Jail
1. Payment of all arrearages herein immediately or
2. Presenting a plan to the Court that it will approve for the payment of ar-rearages herein.”
The record does not show what action, if any, was taken on the contempt order after the judgment was entered.
Although not raised by the parties, we consider the issue of the appealability of the trial court’s order sua sponte. Hamilton v. Hamilton, 661 S.W.2d 82, 83 (Mo.App.1983). In order for an appeal to lie, there must be a final judgment or order. § 512.020, RSMo (1978); Hamilton, 661 S.W.2d at 83.
The appeal is dismissed without prejudice as premature.
. Petitioner brought a motion for contempt, or in the alternative, to modify the dissolution decree. The motion to modify was stricken and petitioner proceeded on the motion for contempt.
. The form used by the court was left blank regarding a specific jail.