Plummer v. United Savings & Loan Ass'n

781 S.W.2d 827, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1868, 1989 WL 156028
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 28, 1989
Docket16302
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 781 S.W.2d 827 (Plummer v. United Savings & Loan Ass'n) 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
Plummer v. United Savings & Loan Ass'n, 781 S.W.2d 827, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1868, 1989 WL 156028 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

PREWITT, Judge.

Plaintiffs filed a three-count petition. Count I sought a permanent injunction to prevent defendant from foreclosing a deed of trust covering property owned by plaintiffs. Count II sought declaratory judgment on whether plaintiffs were in default on a note, the payment of which was secured by the deed of trust. Count III sought money damages.

The trial court severed, for trial, Counts I and II from Count III. Following nonju-ry trial that court entered a “Judgment Entry” granting the relief plaintiffs sought in Counts I and II. According to the record filed here no entry has been made regarding Count III. It apparently still pends in the trial court. Defendant filed a notice of appeal following the “Judgment Entry”.

Although not questioned by the parties, this court is obligated to determine if it has jurisdiction. Boatner v. Slusher, Inc., 614 S.W.2d 35 (Mo.App.1981). Except for a few types of cases covered elsewhere, § 512.020, RSMo 1986, provides for when appeals may be taken. It is applicable here. Generally, for there to be an appeal-able judgment under that section, all claims between all parties must be determined. Rule 74.01(b); Ritter v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 686 S.W.2d 563, 564 (Mo.App.1985).

The only additional factor to be considered is the exception stated in Rule 74.-01(b), that the trial court may enter an appealable judgment on less than all claims or parties if it makes “an express determination that there is no just reason for delay.” No such determination was made here.

There is no judgment here from which an appeal will lie. The appeal is dismissed.

CROW, P.J., and GREENE, J., concur.

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

Related

LCA Leasing Corp. v. Bolivar Professional Pharmacy, Inc.
901 S.W.2d 342 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1995)
Davis v. Beck
881 S.W.2d 264 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1994)
Sertoma Building Corp. v. Johnson
864 S.W.2d 25 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1993)
C.C. v. H.C.
850 S.W.2d 356 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1993)
In the Matter of SBA
850 S.W.2d 356 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1993)
Ward v. Hentges
844 S.W.2d 471 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1992)
Clark v. Fitzpatrick
801 S.W.2d 426 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990)
Wilson v. Mercantile Bank of Springfield
791 S.W.2d 497 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990)
ACU Credit Union v. Estate of Melman
788 S.W.2d 803 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990)
In re the Marriage of Boyd
786 S.W.2d 626 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
781 S.W.2d 827, 1989 Mo. App. LEXIS 1868, 1989 WL 156028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plummer-v-united-savings-loan-assn-moctapp-1989.