Turner-Bey v. Hagenhoff

413 S.W.3d 676, 2013 WL 5978456, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1343
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 12, 2013
DocketNo. WD 75988
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 413 S.W.3d 676 (Turner-Bey v. Hagenhoff) 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
Turner-Bey v. Hagenhoff, 413 S.W.3d 676, 2013 WL 5978456, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1343 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

JAMES EDWARD WELSH, Chief Judge.

Oscar Turner-Bey appeals from a judgment entered by the small claims division of the circuit court. The court dismissed Turner-Bey’s petition because the statute of limitation had expired on all of his claims. Rather than petition the circuit court for a trial de novo, Turner-Bey filed an appeal directly with this court. Because section 482.365, RSMo 2000, does not provide for appeals from small claims judgments directly to this court, we dismiss Turner-Bey’s appeal.

Turner-Bey, an inmate at Jefferson City Correctional Center, filed a petition in-the small claims division of the Circuit Court of Cole County on May 31, 2012, alleging that Sandra Hagenhoff, a correctional officer, and several other Department of Corrections employees damaged or refused to return to him four items of his property: a Crockpot, a television, a cassette radio, and a word processor. According to Turner-Bey, the Crockpot was damaged on April 17, 2007. He further alleged that he became aware that his cassette radio had been taken from him and that his television had been damaged prior to December 13, 2010. In addition, Turner-Bey alleged that he became aware that his word processor had been damaged on December 4, 2010.

Hagenhoff filed a motion to dismiss Turner-Bey’s petition on the ground that the statute of limitation had run on all of Turner-Bey’s claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss on that ground. Turner-Bey then filed a notice of appeal with this court.1

“In Missouri, the right to appeal is purely statutory, and ‘where a statute does not give a right to appeal, no right exists.’ ” Fannie Mae v. Truong, 361 S.W.3d 400, 403 (Mo. banc 2012) (quoting Farinella v. Croft, 922 S.W.2d 755, 756 (Mo. banc 1996)). Section 512.020, RSMo Cum.Supp.2012, provides that a party may appeal a final judgment “of any trial court in any civil cause from which an appeal is ... no[t] clearly limited in special statuto[678]*678ry proceedings[.]” Small claims cases are special statutory proceedings governed by sections 482.300 through 482.365, RSMo. These statutes do not authorize an appeal from a small claims judgment. Rather, section 482.365.2 provides that “[a]ny party aggrieved by any final judgment rendered by a small claims court in a small claims proceeding ... may have a trial de novo.” “An appeal without statutory sanction confers no authority upon an appellate court except to enter an order dismissing the appeal.” Prosser v. Derickson, 1 S.W.3d 608, 609 (Mo.App.1999).

Turner-Bey’s sole recourse was to file for a trial de novo in the circuit court.2 He cannot appeal directly to this court. We, therefore, dismiss his appeal.3

All concur.

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

Related

George Fuller v. Cindy Griffith
Missouri Court of Appeals, 2021

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
413 S.W.3d 676, 2013 WL 5978456, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-bey-v-hagenhoff-moctapp-2013.