Artisan Construction, Inc. v. Greuter

Missouri Court of Appeals

Artisan Construction, Inc. v. Greuter

975 S.W.2d 958, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1737, 1998 WL 668195

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 30, 1998

DocketNo. 21998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 975 S.W.2d 958 (Artisan Construction, Inc. v. Greuter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Artisan Construction, Inc. v. Greuter, 975 S.W.2d 958, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1737, 1998 WL 668195 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

Following non-jury trial, “judgment” was entered in favor of Appellant and against Defendant Greuter, and against Appellant on its claim against Defendants-Respondents. The court, however, did not rule upon Respondents’ three-count cross claim against Defendant Greuter. That cross claim sought damages, attorney’s fees and costs related to defending Appellant’s claim. Although at least some of that claim might by implication be denied because Respondents were not held responsible to Plaintiff, on the record before us, at least attorney’s fees are still an issue.

For an appeal to he, there must be a judgment from which an order may be taken under Section 512.020, RSMo 1994. Jefferson v. Bick, 840 S.W.2d 890, 891 (Mo.App.1992). An appealable judgment is one that disposes of all parties and issues as provided in Rule 74.01. Id. Whether the trial court could have made the “judgment” appealable by finding “no just reason for delay,” under Rule 74.01(b), is not before us, as the trial judge did not do so. For a judgment to be appealable, absent a compliance with Rule 74.01(b), it must leave nothing for further determination. Albright v. Kelley, 926 S.W.2d 207, 209 (Mo.App.1996). Here, as there are issues still to be determined, the appeal must be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

PARRISH and SHRUM, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

Following non-jury trial, “judgment” was entered in favor of Appellant and against Defendant Greuter, and against Appellant on its claim against Defendants-Respondents. The court, however, did not rule upon Respondents’ three-count cross claim against Defendant Greuter. That cross claim sought damages, attorney’s fees and costs related to defending Appellant’s claim. Although at least some of that claim might by implication be denied because Respondents were not held responsible to Plaintiff, on the record before us, at least attorney’s fees are still an issue.

For an appeal to he, there must be a judgment from which an order may be taken under Section 512.020, RSMo 1994. Jefferson v. Bick, 840 S.W.2d 890, 891 (Mo.App.1992). An appealable judgment is one that disposes of all parties and issues as provided in Rule 74.01. Id. Whether the trial court could have made the “judgment” appealable by finding “no just reason for delay,” under Rule 74.01(b), is not before us, as the trial judge did not do so. For a judgment to be appealable, absent a compliance with Rule 74.01(b), it must leave nothing for further determination. Albright v. Kelley, 926 S.W.2d 207, 209 (Mo.App.1996). Here, as there are issues still to be determined, the appeal must be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

PARRISH and SHRUM, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

975 S.W.2d 958, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 1737, 1998 WL 668195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/artisan-construction-inc-v-greuter-moctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack