Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

969 S.W.2d 765

Keck v. Keck

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 19, 1998

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1998-05-19

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 2002

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[P]ursuant to Rule 74.06(a), the court hereby corrects by interlineation the title of the decree of dissolution entered October 17, 1996, to read as follows: “Judgment and Decree of Dissolution”. The corrected title replaces the original title of the decree which had erroneously read “Findings and Recommendations for Judgment and Decree of Dissolution”. All other aspects of the court’s judgment, including date of entry of the judgment as October 17, 1996, remains [sic] unchanged by this order.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Keck v. Keck

Relies on City of St. Louis v. Hughes · Marriage of Slay v. Slay

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-05-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ROBERT G. DOWD, Jr., Presiding Judge.

¶1Following denial of his motion for a hearing by a judge, Robert L. Keck, Jr., Father, appeals from the decision issued October 17, 1996, by the St. Charles County Family Court Commissioner. Appeal dismissed.

¶2Initially, Father appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court raising constitutional challenges to Chapter 487 RSMo. On October 24, 1997, the Supreme Court issued its order “finding the constitutional challenge was not timely raised in the court below,” and “[t]hus the issues relating to the validity of the challenged statutes have not been preserved.” The Supreme Court transferred the case to this court.

¶3After the Supreme Court transferred the cause to this court, the Supreme Court handed down Slay v. Slay, 965 S.W.2d 845 (Mo.banc.1998), holding that a decision by a Family Court Commissioner could not be appealed because it was not signed by a person selected for office under Article V of the Missouri Constitution.

¶4We dismiss the appeal. On October 17, 1996, the Family Court Commissioner signed a document called Findings and Recommendations for Judgment and Decree of Dissolution. Following the commissioner’s decision, Father moved for a hearing before a judge. His request was denied. This court lacks jurisdiction to review a decision issued by a commissioner, unless the decision has been adopted by a judge of the circuit court who was selected pursuant to Article V of the Missouri Constitution. Slay v. Slay, 965 S.W.2d 845 (Mo.banc.1998). A commissioner is not authorized to exercise judicial power by Article V of the Missouri Constitution. Id.

¶5In this case the decision issued by the commissioner was not adopted by a judge of the circuit court. Thus, we lack jurisdiction to review this appeal pursuant to Slay. Moreover, even if the denial of Father’s motion for hearing by a circuit judge could be construed as an adoption of the commissioner’s decision, it would not be reviewable as a judgment because the circuit judge did not denominate it as a judgment. City of St. Louis v. Hughes, 950 S.W.2d 850, 858 (Mo. banc 1997). Accordingly, Father’s appeal is dismissed.

SIMON and HOFF, JJ., concur.
/969/sw2d/765 · .json · Public domain