Gordon v. Babcock

Missouri Court of Appeals

Gordon v. Babcock

149 S.W.3d 546, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1717, 2004 WL 2519254

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 9, 2004

DocketED 85083

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 149 S.W.3d 546 (Gordon v. Babcock) 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

Gordon v. Babcock, 149 S.W.3d 546, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1717, 2004 WL 2519254 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

GEORGE W. DRAPER III, Chief Judge.

Michael Babcock (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s entry of a default judgment against him and in favor of Sharon Gordon (Respondent). Because there *547 is no final, appealable judgment, we dismiss the appeal.

Respondent filed a multi-count petition against Appellant and four different companies, seeking judicial dissolution of the companies as well as an accounting and damages, among other things. Appellant and Respondent each hold 50 percent of the shares for the four companies. Appellant raised a jurisdictional challenge to the petition. After the trial court denied Appellant’s jurisdictional challenge, he was ordered to file a responsive pleading. When he failed to do so, Respondent filed a motion for entry of a default judgment. The trial court entered a default judgment against Appellant and the four companies. The court further set the matter for a hearing to determine damages and equitable relief. Appellant filed the instant appeal.

In response to Appellant’s appeal, Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, contending there is no final, ap-pealable judgment because the trial court has yet to determine the damages. Appellant filed a response, which fails to address whether the judgment is final and appeal-able. Instead, Appellant argues the merits of his appeal, namely that the trial judge did not have the authority to enter the default judgment because a petition for an extraordinary writ was pending against him.

An appellate court only has jurisdiction over final judgments that dispose of all parties and claims in the case and leave nothing for future determination. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lindley, 112 S.W.3d 449, 451 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Any adjudication of fewer than all claims or all parties does not terminate the action, which makes it subject to revision by the trial court at any time until final judgment. Rule 74.01(b).

Here, the trial court only entered a default judgment against Appellant and has not resolved the issue of equitable relief or the amount of damages due to Respondent. Damages are an essential element of a claim and must be resolved for a judgment to be final and appealable. Schulze v. Erickson, 17 S.W.3d 588, 591 (Mo.App. W.D.2000). Partial judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of liability alone is interlocutory in character and is not a final judgment subject to appellate review. Stotts v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co., 118 S.W.3d 655, 660 (Mo.App. W.D.2003). Therefore, the court’s order is still subject to revision and is not a final, appealable judgment. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of a final judgment. Id.

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice for lack of a final, appealable judgment.

LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN and GLENN A. NORTON, JJ., concur.

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

GEORGE W. DRAPER III, Chief Judge.

Michael Babcock (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s entry of a default judgment against him and in favor of Sharon Gordon (Respondent). Because there *547 is no final, appealable judgment, we dismiss the appeal.

Respondent filed a multi-count petition against Appellant and four different companies, seeking judicial dissolution of the companies as well as an accounting and damages, among other things. Appellant and Respondent each hold 50 percent of the shares for the four companies. Appellant raised a jurisdictional challenge to the petition. After the trial court denied Appellant’s jurisdictional challenge, he was ordered to file a responsive pleading. When he failed to do so, Respondent filed a motion for entry of a default judgment. The trial court entered a default judgment against Appellant and the four companies. The court further set the matter for a hearing to determine damages and equitable relief. Appellant filed the instant appeal.

In response to Appellant’s appeal, Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, contending there is no final, ap-pealable judgment because the trial court has yet to determine the damages. Appellant filed a response, which fails to address whether the judgment is final and appeal-able. Instead, Appellant argues the merits of his appeal, namely that the trial judge did not have the authority to enter the default judgment because a petition for an extraordinary writ was pending against him.

An appellate court only has jurisdiction over final judgments that dispose of all parties and claims in the case and leave nothing for future determination. American Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lindley, 112 S.W.3d 449, 451 (Mo.App. E.D.2003). Any adjudication of fewer than all claims or all parties does not terminate the action, which makes it subject to revision by the trial court at any time until final judgment. Rule 74.01(b).

Here, the trial court only entered a default judgment against Appellant and has not resolved the issue of equitable relief or the amount of damages due to Respondent. Damages are an essential element of a claim and must be resolved for a judgment to be final and appealable. Schulze v. Erickson, 17 S.W.3d 588, 591 (Mo.App. W.D.2000). Partial judgment for the plaintiff on the issue of liability alone is interlocutory in character and is not a final judgment subject to appellate review. Stotts v. Progressive Classic Ins. Co., 118 S.W.3d 655, 660 (Mo.App. W.D.2003). Therefore, the court’s order is still subject to revision and is not a final, appealable judgment. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of a final judgment. Id.

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice for lack of a final, appealable judgment.

LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN and GLENN A. NORTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

149 S.W.3d 546, 2004 Mo. App. LEXIS 1717, 2004 WL 2519254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gordon-v-babcock-moctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack