 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Berlin v. Pickett3/28/2003
s precluded any recovery by Berlin (despite the possible divisibility of the action on account); or whether Berlin had failed to prove the reasonableness of his services. Accordingly, this court cannot provide meaningful review, and a remand is necessary. Smith v. Woodard , 15 S.W.3d 768, 774 (Mo. App. 2000).
It should be noted, however, that even if a request for findings of fact under Rule 73.01 is made, a trial court need not make findings of fact unless the movant clearly and unequivocally specifies the controverted fact issues. Hammons v. Ehney, 924 S.W.2d 843, 849 (Mo. banc 1996); In re Marriage of Colley, 984 S.W.2d 163, 171 (Mo. App. 1998) ; Jefferson v. Bick, 872 S.W.2d 115, 121 (Mo. App. 1994) ; Aviation Supply Corp. v. R.S.B.I. Aerospace, Inc. , 868 S.W.2d 118, 119 (Mo. App. 1993) . Pickett's request did not specify any controverted findings of fact -- e.g., the reasonableness of Berlin's charges. See Thurman v. Crawford , 652 S.W.2d 240, 242 (Mo. App. 1983) . Consequently, his request for findings of fact was facially deficient. See Hammons, 924 S.W.2d at 849 . This does not necessarily mean, however, that the trial court had no obligation to give the reasons for its decision. See Dorman v. Dorman , 91 S.W.3d 167, 171 (Mo. App. 2002) (noting the distinction between a request for the grounds of the decision and request for findings of fact).
Berlin is correct to assume he has standing, an issue that this court has a duty to raise sua sponte. State ex rel. Mathewson v. Board of Election Comm'rs of St. Louis County , 841 S.W.2d 633, 634 (Mo. banc 1992) . Unless aggrieved by a judgment, a party has no standing to appeal. Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Briggs , 793 S.W.2d 862, 863 (Mo. banc 1990) . Normally, such piggybacking on an opponent's argument as Berlin's is impermissible. See State v. Knese, 985 S.W.2d 759, 775 (Mo. banc 1999) (third party standing only if litigant has suffered a concrete injury , has a close relation to the third party, and there exists some hindrance to the third party's ability to protect its own interests) (quotations omitted). And, arguably, Berlin's failure to request findings of fact or the grounds of the decision indicates that the trial court's inaction did not harm Berlin. Rule 84.13(b), which states that "no appellate court shall reverse any judgment unless it finds that error committed by the trial court against the appellant materially affecting the merits of the action," (emphasis added), bolsters this conclusion, as Pickett argues.
But his argument is untenable. First and foremost, it would have been redundant for Berlin to request the grounds of the decision. The court had already granted Pickett's request. Second, such a request is not like the garden-variety requests made of trial courts presupposed by Rule 84.13(b); it does not redound solely to the benefit of the movant. This is reflected in the fact that the case must be remanded only if the failure of the trial court to explain its judgment interferes with appellate review, Smith , 15 S.W.3d at 774 , which could benefit either party. Most importantly, Rule 84.13(b) is not applicable; this case is not being reversed, only remanded. See Hammons v. Ehney, 924 S.W.2d 843, 850 (Mo. banc 1996) (normal remedy for failing to make findings required by Rule 73.01 is to remand case to trial court for it to make findings). Conversely, an objection to the admission of evidence -- an analogy raised by Pickett -- if sustained, will presumably help the objecting party and hurt the other party. Not so here. Unless they knew the basis of the judgment, or it was obvious, the parties and this court would be forced into a guessing game. The third flaw in Pickett's argument is that it proves too much, precludin
Page 1 2 3 4 Missouri Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|