Ward v. Our Used Cars, Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Ward v. Our Used Cars, Inc.

822 S.W.2d 578, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 129, 1992 WL 9631

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 21, 1992

DocketNo. 60025

StatusPublished

This text of 822 S.W.2d 578 (Ward v. Our Used Cars, Inc.) 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

Ward v. Our Used Cars, Inc., 822 S.W.2d 578, 1992 Mo. App. LEXIS 129, 1992 WL 9631 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

This litigation began when Tiffany Ward filed a petition in small claims court for recision of contract to purchase a car from defendant, Our Used Cars, Inc., after defendant repossessed the car. On April 24, 1990, Ward obtained a default judgment in the amount of $1,500. Defendant filed a timely application for trial de novo. Rule 151.02. The parties appeared pro se in the de novo bench trial on November 15, 1990, and the court entered a judgment in favor of Ward.

A trial de novo in a small claims case is “governed by the practice in trials before circuit judges_” Section 482.-365.2 RSMo 1986. Accordingly, any motion for new trial was due November 30, 1990, fifteen days after entry of judgment. Rule 78.04. The motion for new trial filed on December 14, 1990, and the notice of appeal filed on March 14, 1991, were untimely. The judgment was final thirty days after November 15, 1990, therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to consider appeal.

If we had jurisdiction, we would deem defendant’s points on appeal as abandoned because they are neither supported by citation of relevant authority nor issues of first impression. See Wright v. Martin, 674 S.W.2d 238, 242 (Mo.App.1984). See also Rule 84.04(d).

Appeal dismissed.

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