Choate v. Hicks
This text of 968 S.W.2d 255 (Choate v. Hicks) 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.
Opinion
Naoma Potter Hicks (Defendant) appeals from an order of the trial court denying her Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer and Counterclaim. Because the trial court’s order is not a judgment within the meaning of Rule 74.01(a),1 the appeal must be dismissed.
The trial court denied Defendant’s motion in a document entitled “Order.” It recites, inter alia, that “Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Answer and Counterclaim is hereby denied.”2 The order is stamped “Filed,” and the judge’s signature appears at the bottom of it. The word “judgment” does not appear in the text or title of the document.
The existence of a final judgment is a prerequisite to appellate review. Brooks v. Director of Revenue, 954 S.W.2d 715, 716 (Mo.App.1997). If the trial court’s ruling is not a final judgment, this court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss an appeal therefrom. City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 852 (Mo.banc 1997). A judgment must be written, signed by the judge, denominated “judgment,” and filed. Rule 74.01(a).3 The trial court’s order in the instant case, though written, signed, and filed, is not denominated “judgment,” and is therefore not a judgment according to Rule 74.01(a). Hughes, 950 S.W.2d at 853.
Defendant’s appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction,.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
968 S.W.2d 255, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 874, 1998 WL 219731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/choate-v-hicks-moctapp-1998.