Watkins v. Watkins

Missouri Court of Appeals

Watkins v. Watkins

556 S.W.2d 215, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2303

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 13, 1977

DocketNo. 10680

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 556 S.W.2d 215 (Watkins v. Watkins) 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

Watkins v. Watkins, 556 S.W.2d 215, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2303 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On December 21, 1976, the Circuit Court of Greene County entered a dissolution of marriage decree. On January 13, 1977, 23 days after the decree was entered, appellant filed a motion to set aside the decree and to grant a new trial. On May 6, 1977, appellant’s notice of appeal was filed.

Rule 73.01, V.A.M.R., requires motions for new trial in cases tried to the court to be filed “. . . not later than 15 days after the entry of judgment . . .” A timely after-trial motion postpones the finality of the judgment until such time as the motion has been disposed of. Rule 78.-04, V.A.M.R. Otherwise, the judgment becomes final for purposes of appeal at the expiration of 30 days following entry of the judgment. Rule 81.05(a), V.A.M.R. Here, appellant relied upon an untimely motion for new trial with the result that appellant’s notice of appeal was also untimely. Rules 81.05(a) and 81.04, V.A.M.R.

We are duty bound to determine the timeliness of the notice of appeal because this court does not acquire appellate jurisdiction in the absence of a timely notice of appeal. Kuhn v. Bunch, 529 S.W.2d 200(1) (Mo.App.1975).

The appeal is dismissed.

All concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

On December 21, 1976, the Circuit Court of Greene County entered a dissolution of marriage decree. On January 13, 1977, 23 days after the decree was entered, appellant filed a motion to set aside the decree and to grant a new trial. On May 6, 1977, appellant’s notice of appeal was filed.

Rule 73.01, V.A.M.R., requires motions for new trial in cases tried to the court to be filed “. . . not later than 15 days after the entry of judgment . . .” A timely after-trial motion postpones the finality of the judgment until such time as the motion has been disposed of. Rule 78.-04, V.A.M.R. Otherwise, the judgment becomes final for purposes of appeal at the expiration of 30 days following entry of the judgment. Rule 81.05(a), V.A.M.R. Here, appellant relied upon an untimely motion for new trial with the result that appellant’s notice of appeal was also untimely. Rules 81.05(a) and 81.04, V.A.M.R.

We are duty bound to determine the timeliness of the notice of appeal because this court does not acquire appellate jurisdiction in the absence of a timely notice of appeal. Kuhn v. Bunch, 529 S.W.2d 200(1) (Mo.App.1975).

The appeal is dismissed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

556 S.W.2d 215, 1977 Mo. App. LEXIS 2303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watkins-v-watkins-moctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack