Reeves v. Smith

Missouri Court of Appeals

Reeves v. Smith

621 S.W.2d 534, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 2991

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 3, 1981

DocketNo. 12413

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 621 S.W.2d 534 (Reeves v. Smith) 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

Reeves v. Smith, 621 S.W.2d 534, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 2991 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

BILLINGS, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiffs W. L. Reeves and Juanita Reeves filed a four-count petition against defendants Gary L. Smith and John Dennis, alleging they were jointly and severally liable for fraud. Actual and punitive damages were sought. The trial court granted the motion of defendant Dennis for summary judgment and plaintiffs filed this appeal. Defendant Dennis has moved to dismiss the appeal, contending the order of court did not constitute a final appealable judgment. We agree and dismiss the appeal.

The trial court’s order did not purport to adjudge the rights of all the parties and did not specifically designate it as a final judgment for purposes of appeal, and no order was made for separate trial of issues among the parties. The rule has long been that a final appealable judgment is one which disposes of all parties and issues in the case. The only exceptions are where the court has ordered separate trial of issues or has designated the judgment or order entered final for purposes of appeal. New Age Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n v. Miller, 461 S.W.2d 876 (Mo.1970).

[535]*535In Hill v. Boles, 583 S.W.2d 141 (Mo.banc 1979), plaintiff sued a doctor and a hospital for negligent care and treatment. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the hospital. No appeal was taken and trial was had against the doctor. On appeal the hospital contended the summary judgment was a final judgment from which plaintiff was required to perfect his appeal within 10 days after entry of the summary judgment. Our supreme court ruled to the contrary, noting “[A]n appeal must be from a final judgment (with specified exceptions), the trial court must have disposed of all issues and all parties. This requirement that all issues and all parties have been disposed of is for the purpose of avoiding piecemeal presentation of cases on appeal, except where specifically so authorized. Bolin v. Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co., 549 S.W.2d 886, 889[2, 3] (Mo.banc 1977).”

The appeal is premature and is dismissed.

All concur.

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

BILLINGS, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiffs W. L. Reeves and Juanita Reeves filed a four-count petition against defendants Gary L. Smith and John Dennis, alleging they were jointly and severally liable for fraud. Actual and punitive damages were sought. The trial court granted the motion of defendant Dennis for summary judgment and plaintiffs filed this appeal. Defendant Dennis has moved to dismiss the appeal, contending the order of court did not constitute a final appealable judgment. We agree and dismiss the appeal.

The trial court’s order did not purport to adjudge the rights of all the parties and did not specifically designate it as a final judgment for purposes of appeal, and no order was made for separate trial of issues among the parties. The rule has long been that a final appealable judgment is one which disposes of all parties and issues in the case. The only exceptions are where the court has ordered separate trial of issues or has designated the judgment or order entered final for purposes of appeal. New Age Federal Savings and Loan Ass’n v. Miller, 461 S.W.2d 876 (Mo.1970).

[535]*535In Hill v. Boles, 583 S.W.2d 141 (Mo.banc 1979), plaintiff sued a doctor and a hospital for negligent care and treatment. Summary judgment was entered in favor of the hospital. No appeal was taken and trial was had against the doctor. On appeal the hospital contended the summary judgment was a final judgment from which plaintiff was required to perfect his appeal within 10 days after entry of the summary judgment. Our supreme court ruled to the contrary, noting “[A]n appeal must be from a final judgment (with specified exceptions), the trial court must have disposed of all issues and all parties. This requirement that all issues and all parties have been disposed of is for the purpose of avoiding piecemeal presentation of cases on appeal, except where specifically so authorized. Bolin v. Farmers Alliance Mut. Ins. Co., 549 S.W.2d 886, 889[2, 3] (Mo.banc 1977).”

The appeal is premature and is dismissed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

621 S.W.2d 534, 1981 Mo. App. LEXIS 2991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reeves-v-smith-moctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack