 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dangerfield v. City of Kansas City6/30/2003
9th, the date the trial court ruled on all post-trial motions. On that date, he claims, the trial court lost jurisdiction to grant any future motions by the City. Thus, he claims that the order granting the new trial should be set aside and the August 22nd judgment reinstated. This case does not involve an appeal from the trial court's capping the judgment to comply with Section 537.610, RSMo. (1994). Thus, this court assumes that Dangerfield does not contest reinstating the $100,000 judgment if the order for a new trial is ruled a nullity.
In this case, there are various motions that were filed and rules that apply to effect the finality of the judgment. In order to determine when the judgment was final and the trial court lost jurisdiction, it is important to consider what occurred in this case, the time frame in which it occurred, and the rules associated with finality of a judgment. Five rules that are applicable in this case are Rules 74.01, 74.06, 75.01, 81.05 and 78.07. The difficulty in applying these various rules is that they often apply at a distinct point in the process and their interplay is somewhat unexplained by the rules.
Generally, under Rule 75.01, a trial court retains jurisdiction for thirty days, during which it may vacate, reopen, correct, amend, or modify its judgment. See also In re Marriage of Jeffrey, 53 S.W.3d 173, 175 (Mo. App. 2001) . The court's jurisdiction may be extended, however, under Rule 81.05. This rule provides that the judgment becomes final at the expiration of thirty days, unless an authorized after-trial motion is filed which serves to extend the jurisdiction up to ninety days or on the date the trial court rules on the last motion. Third, Rule 78.07(c) provides that the trial court may amend a judgment pursuant to Rule 75.01 or upon motion by the party. Unless otherwise specified, this amended judgment becomes a new judgment. In addition to these three rules, for a judgment to be final under Rule 74.01, there must be a ruling that is denominated "judgment" or "decree." City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 853 (Mo. banc 1997) . Timeline of Events August 8, 2001 --Jury returns verdict, assessing damages at $843,333.33 and fault apportioned at 32% to the City and 68% to Dangerfield's daughter.
August 22, 2001 --Trial court enters judgment in accordance with the jury verdict for $269,866.67 (under Rule 75.01, the trial court retains jurisdiction for 30 days).
September 20, 2001 --City files "Motion to Amend Judgment to Conform with the Limits of section 537.610(2)" filed (if authorized after-trial motion under Rule 81.05, extends jurisdiction of the court up to 90 days). Dangerfield does not contest this motion.
September 21, 2001 --City files Motion for JNOV or New Trial (authorized after-trial motion, extends jurisdiction of the court up to 90 days).
November 29, 2001 --Trial court issues "Order" granting "motion to amend" and denying motion for new trial (Judgment final under Rule 81.05 or, as City alleges, did not comply with Rule 74.01(a)).
December 10, 2001 --Trial court issues ruling identical to November 29th Order but designated "Judgment" (nullity because court lost jurisdiction or as City alleges a judgment effectively amending August 22 judgment, thus a " new" judgment that extends jurisdiction of the court for 30 days).
December 20, 2001-- City files in almost the same language as the September 21st motion a second motion for JNOV or New Trial (as City alleges, extends jurisdiction up to 90 days).
December 20, 2001 --City files Notice of Appeal.
February 21, 2002 --Trial court grants second motion for new trial.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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
|