Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Citimortgage, Inc. v. Waggoner

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern District, First Division

September 5, 2014

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
GEORGE M. WAGGONER, Defendant-Appellant

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY. Honorable Jason R. Brown, Associate Circuit Judge.

Appellant Acting, Pro se.

For Respondent: Scott D. Mosier and Aaron M. Schuckman of Chesterfield, MO.

JEFFREY W. BATES, J. - OPINION AUTHOR. DANIEL E. SCOTT, J. - CONCUR. WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, Jr., C.J./P.J. - CONCUR.

OPINION

JEFFREY W. BATES, J.

George Waggoner (Appellant) filed a notice of appeal from a trial court ruling denying his request to set aside a summary judgment entered against him. Citimortgage, Inc. (Respondent) argues that dismissal is required because the judgment

Page 590

is not final. We agree and dismiss the appeal.

In August 2011, Respondent filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri against the following defendants: Appellant; Elizabeth Waggoner; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; City Utilities Employee Credit Union (Credit Union); Kathryn Rinaldi; Susan Crain; Carol Plymire (Plymire); and Diane Collier. The petition sought reformation, quiet title and declaratory relief based upon an alleged error in the legal description of certain property in which the defendants had an interest. Respondent's claim against Credit Union was dismissed without prejudice. The other defendants filed a joint answer to the petition.

In June 2013, Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment. On July 31, 2013, the trial court granted the motion. On August 1, 2013, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of Respondent and against all of the defendants. The judgment disposed of all claims against all parties.

On August 20, 2013, defendant Plymire filed a motion to set aside the summary judgment against defendants. The motion sought relief pursuant to Rule 74.06(b) based upon excusable neglect.

On October 22, 2013, the trial court granted the motion in part and set aside the judgment against Plymire. The trial court's ruling did not include a Rule 74.01(b) express determination that there was no just reason to delay the finality of the rulings on Respondent's claims against the remaining defendants.

On November 1, 2013, Appellant filed a motion to set aside the judgment as to the other defendants. On November 18, 2013, the trial court denied that motion. This appeal followed. Respondent argues that this appeal must be dismissed for lack of a final judgment because the claim against defendant Plymire is still pending. We agree.

" Generally, an appeal lies only from a final judgment that disposes of all issues and parties, leaving nothing for future consideration." Carleton Properties, LLC v. Patterson, 304 S.W.3d 278, 280 (Mo. App. 2010); see also § 512.020(5) RSMo Cum. Supp. (2011). In cases involving multiple parties or claims, Rule 74.01(b) creates an exception to this general rule. Safe Auto Ins. Co. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.