Strawhun v. Strawhun

Missouri Court of Appeals

Strawhun v. Strawhun

164 S.W.3d 536, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 868, 2005 WL 1367107

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 10, 2005

Docket26266

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 164 S.W.3d 536 (Strawhun v. Strawhun) 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

Strawhun v. Strawhun, 164 S.W.3d 536, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 868, 2005 WL 1367107 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

JOHN E. PARRISH, Presiding Judge.

Jeffrey Harlan Strawhun, appellant, seeks to appeal a judgment entered in an action for dissolution of marriage in which, as trial progressed, the parties announced they had reached an agreed disposition of all pending issues. The terms of the parties’ agreement was read into the record. Each party testified that they agreed to the terms that were presented to the trial court. Additionally, appellant testified that he understood by entering into the agreement, he was waiving any right to future trials and his right to appeal. Thereafter, the trial court approved the settlement and entered a “Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage” and, subsequently, an “Amended Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage.” As explained in Marquez v. Marquez, 136 S.W.3d 574 (Mo.App.2004), the appeal must be dismissed.

Marquez explains:

In Missouri, the right to appeal is statutory. Segar v. Segar, 50 S.W.3d 844, 846 (Mo.App.2001). For most civil actions, the right to appeal to [sic] is granted to “[a]ny party to a suit aggrieved by any judgment of any trial court ....”§ 512.020 [RSMo 2000] (emphasis added). “A party is not aggrieved by a judgment entered pursuant to a voluntary settlement agreement.” Segar, 50 S.W.3d at 847. “ ‘Parties are estopped or waive their right to appeal under section 512.020 when a judgment is entered at their request.’ ” In re Marriage of Echessa, 74 S.W.3d 802, 805 (Mo.App.2002) (quoting In Interest of A.H., 963 S.W.2d 374, 377 (Mo.App.1998)). “ ‘This follows because a judgment entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties is not a judicial determination of rights.’ ” Id. (quoting A.H., 963 S.W.2d at 377). [Footnote omitted.]

Id. at 578. Rule 74.06, under circumstances stated in that rule, addresses the remedy for a party who believes a mistake was made in the entry of a judgment.

The appeal is dismissed.

SHRUM and BARNEY, JJ., concur.

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

JOHN E. PARRISH, Presiding Judge.

Jeffrey Harlan Strawhun, appellant, seeks to appeal a judgment entered in an action for dissolution of marriage in which, as trial progressed, the parties announced they had reached an agreed disposition of all pending issues. The terms of the parties’ agreement was read into the record. Each party testified that they agreed to the terms that were presented to the trial court. Additionally, appellant testified that he understood by entering into the agreement, he was waiving any right to future trials and his right to appeal. Thereafter, the trial court approved the settlement and entered a “Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage” and, subsequently, an “Amended Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage.” As explained in Marquez v. Marquez, 136 S.W.3d 574 (Mo.App.2004), the appeal must be dismissed.

Marquez explains:

In Missouri, the right to appeal is statutory. Segar v. Segar, 50 S.W.3d 844, 846 (Mo.App.2001). For most civil actions, the right to appeal to [sic] is granted to “[a]ny party to a suit aggrieved by any judgment of any trial court ....”§ 512.020 [RSMo 2000] (emphasis added). “A party is not aggrieved by a judgment entered pursuant to a voluntary settlement agreement.” Segar, 50 S.W.3d at 847. “ ‘Parties are estopped or waive their right to appeal under section 512.020 when a judgment is entered at their request.’ ” In re Marriage of Echessa, 74 S.W.3d 802, 805 (Mo.App.2002) (quoting In Interest of A.H., 963 S.W.2d 374, 377 (Mo.App.1998)). “ ‘This follows because a judgment entered pursuant to an agreement of the parties is not a judicial determination of rights.’ ” Id. (quoting A.H., 963 S.W.2d at 377). [Footnote omitted.]

Id. at 578. Rule 74.06, under circumstances stated in that rule, addresses the remedy for a party who believes a mistake was made in the entry of a judgment.

The appeal is dismissed.

SHRUM and BARNEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.W.3d 536, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 868, 2005 WL 1367107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/strawhun-v-strawhun-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack