Hamilton v. Hamilton

661 S.W.2d 82, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 3656
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 22, 1983
Docket46384
StatusPublished
Cited by25 cases

This text of 661 S.W.2d 82 (Hamilton v. Hamilton) 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
Hamilton v. Hamilton, 661 S.W.2d 82, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 3656 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

CRANDALL, Presiding Judge.

Appellant, Warren B. Hamilton, appeals from the order of the trial court finding him in civil contempt. We dismiss the appeal without prejudice as premature.

*83 The parties to this action were divorced in 1971. The present proceedings were initiated in August 1979 by respondent’s motion to modify the divorce decree and petition to cite for contempt. After a hearing at which evidence was adduced, the trial court, on August 27, 1982, found appellant in civil contempt for failure to pay past-due child support of $18,825. Appellant was ordered committed to the St. Charles County jail until such time as he either complied with the order to pay or submitted a plan for payment which was approved by the trial court. The trial court stayed its order until October 1, 1982. The record shows that appellant submitted a “Proposed Offer of Payment” on October 1, 1982, with an accompanying affidavit of his expenses. The record fails to show the disposition of this “Proposed Offer” or what, if any, action was taken on October 1. The final entry in the record is the filing of the notice of appeal on October 5, 1982.

The appealability of the trial court’s order has not been questioned by the parties. The issue, however, goes to this court’s jurisdiction and we therefore have a duty to examine it sua sponte. Nimmo v. Nimmo, 616 S.W.2d 131, 133 (Mo.App.1981). In order for an appeal to lie, there must be a final judgment or order. § 512.020, RSMo (1978); Adams v. Adams, 294 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Mo.1956).

The record before us falls short of satisfying that requirement. The trial court entered its order but stayed enforcement until October 1, 1982. On that date one of two things was to happen: either appellant would purge himself of the contempt or go to jail. The record as it was submitted to this court fails to reveal which, if either, occurred. After the case was submitted, without oral argument, appellant was directed pursuant to Rule 81.12(e), to supplement the record to include the following:

(1) A copy of the trial court’s acceptance or rejection of Mr. Hamilton’s proposed payment plan.
(2) A copy of the court order indicating payment in full by Mr. Hamilton of the child support, if there be one.
(3) A copy of the executed warrant and commitment of Mr. Hamilton to jail, if there be one.
(4) A copy of the bond permitting Mr. Hamilton’s release from custody pending appeal, if there be one.

Appellant’s response was that none of the requested documents exist. The record, therefore, fails to show that there is a final judgment that would give this court jurisdiction.

At the outset, we note that if appellant has purged himself of the contempt, no appeal lies. Yeager v. Yeager, 622 S.W.2d 339 (Mo.App.1981). Thus, payment or submission of an approved plan for payment would make this case moot and unappealable.

Even assuming, arguendo, that appellant has not purged himself of the contempt, the record still fails to disclose a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken. The order finding appellant in contempt is not a final judgment. In re Marriage of Miller, 112 Ill.App.3d 203, 68 Ill.Dec. 167, 445 N.E.2d 811, 817 (1983). There is no final judgment until the court’s order is enforced. Enforcement involves the actual incarceration of the contemnor pursuant to a warrant of commitment. Appellant would then be entitled to be released on reasonable bail pending his appeal. Teefey v. Teefey, 533 S.W.2d 563, 566 (Mo. banc 1976). There is no indication in the record that appellant has been arrested, confined, or posted bond. There has been no enforcement. The order of the trial court finding appellant in contempt is therefore interlocutory in nature and not appealable. See Madden v. Madden, 558 P.2d 669 (Wyo.1977); see generally, Annot. 33 A.L.R.3d 448 (1970).

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice as premature.

KAROHL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.

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

Related

In Re Marriage of Crow and Gilmore
103 S.W.3d 778 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 2003)
Strickland v. Strickland
941 S.W.2d 866 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1997)
21 West, Inc. v. Meadowgreen Trails, Inc.
913 S.W.2d 858 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1995)
Happy v. Happy
903 S.W.2d 609 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1995)
State ex rel. Watson v. Watson
858 S.W.2d 841 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1993)
Yalem v. Yalem
811 S.W.2d 493 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1991)
City of Pagedale v. Taylor
790 S.W.2d 516 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990)
Houttuin v. Houttuin
780 S.W.2d 711 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
Marriage of Saeuberlich v. Saeuberlich
782 S.W.2d 78 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
Torrence v. Torrence
774 S.W.2d 880 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
North Dakota, County of Cass ex rel. Young v. Clavin
744 S.W.2d 517 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1988)
Karney v. Wohl
747 S.W.2d 214 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1988)
Foss v. Cunetto
720 S.W.2d 388 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1986)
City of Florissant v. Lee
714 S.W.2d 871 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1986)
Niehoff v. Forney
692 S.W.2d 635 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1985)
Creamer v. Banholzer
694 S.W.2d 497 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1985)
Zaegel v. Zaegel
690 S.W.2d 433 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1985)
Femmer v. Femmer
687 S.W.2d 697 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1985)
Nicholson v. Nicholson
685 S.W.2d 588 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
661 S.W.2d 82, 1983 Mo. App. LEXIS 3656, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hamilton-v-hamilton-moctapp-1983.