Summary
The Missouri Supreme Court held that Bryant Moore was entitled to post-judgment interest under section 408.040.1 because his attempted cross-appeal was never validly filed when he failed to timely pay the required docket fee. The court reversed the trial court’s denial of interest and remanded the case, without deciding whether a valid cross-appeal would bar post-judgment interest.
Holdings
- Because Moore did not timely pay the required docket fee, his notice of cross-appeal did not create a valid cross-appeal; the later notice accompanied by payment was untimely and did not cure the defect.
- Moore was entitled to post-judgment interest because he had not filed a valid cross-appeal.
Questions Presented
- Whether Moore's timely notice of cross-appeal, without payment of the required docket fee, constituted a valid cross-appeal.
- Whether Moore was entitled to post-judgment interest under section 408.040.1 when no valid cross-appeal had been filed.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (9)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 30 (Mo. banc 1976)(followed)
- ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993)(followed)
- Moore by Moore v. Bi-State Development Agency, 87 S.W.3d 279, 294, 296 (Mo. App. 2002)(described)
- State ex rel. Southern Real Estate & Financial Co. v. City of St. Louis, 234 Mo. App. 209, 115 S.W.2d 513, 515 (1938)(followed)
- Land Clearance Authority v. Kansas University, 831 S.W.2d 649 (Mo. App. 1992)(discussed)
- Investors Title Co. v. Chicago Title Ins., 18 S.W.3d 70 (Mo. App. 2000)(discussed)
- Kattering v. Franz, 360 Mo. 854, 231 S.W.2d 148, 150 (1950)(followed)
- Scullin Steel Co. v. PACCAR, Inc., 748 S.W.2d 910 (Mo. App. 1988)(not resolved)
- Ohlendorf v. Feinstein, 670 S.W.2d 930 (Mo. App. 1984)(not resolved)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…