Maurer v. Maurer

Missouri Court of Appeals

Maurer v. Maurer

982 S.W.2d 822, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2267, 1999 WL 3945

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 22, 1998

DocketNo. ED 72769

StatusPublished

This text of 982 S.W.2d 822 (Maurer v. Maurer) 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

Maurer v. Maurer, 982 S.W.2d 822, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2267, 1999 WL 3945 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

MARY K. HOFF, Presiding Judge.

Brian Keith Maurer appeals from the “JUDGMENT/DECREE OF DISSOLUTION” entered on May 22, 1997 by Family Court Commissioner M. Zane Yates. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In Slay v. Slay, 965 S.W.2d 845 (Mo. banc 1998), our Supreme Court decided this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a family court commissioner’s purported judgment which was not signed by a judge. See State ex rel York v. Daugherty, 969 S.W.2d 223 (Mo. banc 1998); In re Bumes, 975 S.W.2d 266 (Mo.App. S.D.1998); Chick v. Chick, 969 S.W.2d 387 (Mo.App. W.D.1998). In the record before us, we have not found a judgment entered by “a person selected for office in accordance with and authorized to exercise judicial power by article V of the state constitution_” Slay, 965 S.W.2d at 845. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal because no final, appealable judgment has been entered as required by Rule 74.01.

Appeal dismissed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, J. and RHODES RUSSELL, J., concur.

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

MARY K. HOFF, Presiding Judge.

Brian Keith Maurer appeals from the “JUDGMENT/DECREE OF DISSOLUTION” entered on May 22, 1997 by Family Court Commissioner M. Zane Yates. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In Slay v. Slay, 965 S.W.2d 845 (Mo. banc 1998), our Supreme Court decided this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a family court commissioner’s purported judgment which was not signed by a judge. See State ex rel York v. Daugherty, 969 S.W.2d 223 (Mo. banc 1998); In re Bumes, 975 S.W.2d 266 (Mo.App. S.D.1998); Chick v. Chick, 969 S.W.2d 387 (Mo.App. W.D.1998). In the record before us, we have not found a judgment entered by “a person selected for office in accordance with and authorized to exercise judicial power by article V of the state constitution_” Slay, 965 S.W.2d at 845. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to consider this appeal because no final, appealable judgment has been entered as required by Rule 74.01.

Appeal dismissed.

GARY M. GAERTNER, J. and RHODES RUSSELL, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

982 S.W.2d 822, 1998 Mo. App. LEXIS 2267, 1999 WL 3945, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maurer-v-maurer-moctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack