 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dangerfield v. City of Kansas City6/30/2003
>
April 17, 2002 --This court granted City's motion to dismiss its appeal.
A. When Did the Judgment Become Final?
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to grant the City's second motion for new trial depends on when the August 22nd judgment became final under Rule 81.05. Once a judgment becomes final under Rule 81.05, the trial court loses jurisdiction to entertain any further motions, unless another Rule provides otherwise. In re Marriage of Jeffrey , 53 S.W.3d at 175. Under Rule 81.05(a)(2), " f a party timely files an authorized after-trial motion, the judgment becomes final at the earlier of the following:"
(A) Ninety days from the date the last timely motion was filed, on which date all motions not ruled shall be deemed overruled; or
(B) If all motions have been ruled, then the date of ruling of the last motion to be ruled or thirty days after entry of judgment, whichever is later.
Were the City's first motion for new trial and motion to reduce the damages in the August 22nd judgment authorized post-trial motions? The Supreme Court has recognized six post-trial motions expressly authorized by the rules:
(1) "a motion to dismiss without prejudice after the introduction of evidence is commenced under Rule 67.01;
(2) "a motion for directed verdict under Rule 72.01(a);
(3) "a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict under Rule 72.01(b) ;
(4) "a motion to amend the judgment [under then-] Rule 73.01(a)(3)," now Rule 78.04; (5) "a motion for relief from judgment or order under Rule 74.06(a) and (b), but see, Rule 74.06(c);" and
(6) "a motion for a new trial under [then-] Rule 78," now Rule 78.04.
Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hart , 41 S.W.3d 504, 511-12 (Mo. App. 2000) (quoting Taylor v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. , 854 S.W.2d 390, 392 n.1 (Mo. banc 1993)). Thus, the City's September 21st motion for new trial was a valid post-trial motion. This court will assume, merely for the sake of argument and solely for purposes of Rule 81.05, that the City's September 29th motion to reduce damages to $100,000 was also authorized. (More on this later.)
Ninety days after the City's last timely motion (the September 21st motion for new trial) was December 21st. Both of the City's post-trial motions were decided on November 29th. November 29th comes before December 21st, so November 29th is the date the August 22nd judgment became final under Rule 81.05.
B. Did the Trial Court's November 29th Order Create a New, Amended Judgment under Rule 78.07(c)?
The City argues that the November 29th order created an amended or modified judgment by changing the amount of damages in the August 22nd judgment. If it did, then, the City claims, it could make another post-trial motion under Rule 81.05 because an amended judgment is a new judgment for all purposes, as provided in Rule 78.07(c). As a new judgment, the November 29th ruling thus allowed the City to file a second motion for new trial. If the November 29th order did create an amended judgment, the City is correct; however, the November 29th order did not create an amended judgment, so the City's argument fails.
The general rule for amending judgments is that a "trial court may amend or modify any judgment in accordance with Rule 75.01 or upon motion by any party. Unless an amended judgment shall otherwise specify, an amended judgment shall be deemed a new judgment for all purposes." Rule 78.07(c). There are many reasons why the November 29th order did not create an amended judgment. The first is that the City did not indicate that it was seeking to amend the August 22nd j
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.
|
|