THYMOIS P. LAMBROU, Plaintiff-Respondent v. ORLEY JACKSON, BETTY JACKSON, and CATHY BRACKETT

THYMOIS P. LAMBROU, )
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
)
vs. ) No. SD33825
)
ORLEY JACKSON, BETTY JACKSON, ) Filed: June 22, 2016
and CATHY BRACKETT, )
)
Defendants-Appellants. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SCOTT COUNTY
Honorable Judge T. Lynn Brown
DISMISSED
This appeal arises from a circuit court action in which Thymois P.
Lambrou ("Plaintiff") sued Orley Jackson ("Mr. Jackson"), Betty Jackson ("Mrs.
Jackson"), and their daughter Cathy Brackett ("Ms. Brackett")1 in numerous
counts relating to the sale of a home and disagreements regarding the use of
neighboring land. The trial court entered a general judgment for Plaintiff, and
Defendants appeal, raising seven points.
1The term "Defendants" will be used to refer to Mr. Jackson, Mrs. Jackson, and Ms. Brackett.
The term "the Jacksons" will be used to refer to Mr. and Mrs. Jackson.
Although not raised by the parties, we must first address whether there is a
final judgment in this case because a final judgment is a prerequisite to appellate
review. Ndegwa v. KSSO, LLC, 371 S.W.3d 798, 801 (Mo. banc 2012). "If the
circuit court's judgment was not a final judgment, then the appeal must be
dismissed." Id.
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants on June 26, 2002. As amended, the
petition stated eleven counts. Count One sought a temporary restraining order
against Defendants to prevent interference with Plaintiff's water supply. Count
Two sought a preliminary injunction against Defendants to prevent interference
with Plaintiff's water supply. Count Three sought a permanent injunction against
Defendants to prevent interference with Plaintiff's water supply. Count Four
sought damages from the Jacksons for breach of contract based on failure to
supply water and failure to repair the damage caused by the leaks in the
basement. Count Five sought $15,000 in damages for breach of contract from
Ms. Brackett for maintaining "disabled automobiles and machinery and other
junk materials" on her property. Count Six sought an injunction to prevent Ms.
Brackett from maintaining those materials on her property. Count Seven sought
$15,000 in damages from the Jacksons for intentional infliction of emotional
distress caused by disconnecting Plaintiff's water supply. Count Eight sought
relief from Mr. Jackson for negligence in constructing the home. Count Nine
sought relief from Mr. Jackson for breach of the implied warranty of habitability.
Count Ten sought relief from Mr. Jackson for breach of the implied warranty of
fitness for a particular purpose. Count Eleven sought $15,000 in damages from
2
Defendants for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the size of the lot, the
quality of construction of the home, and the existence of a subdivision.
A trial was held that lasted several days spread out between August 2,
2012, and November 22, 2013. The trial court later issued findings of fact and
conclusions of law. In that document, the judge enumerated the amount of
damage Plaintiff sustained due to faulty construction of the home. The trial court
also found Ms. Brackett had breached the Agreement Creating Restrictive
Covenants. Although the trial court's findings and conclusions mentioned other
damage amounts and legal claims, the operative portion of the judgment neither
mentioned any count specifically nor apportioned the amounts owed among
Defendants. It stated:
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact the [c]ourt has determined
that it has the equitable power to enter the following Judgment that
will adequately address the issues before this [c]ourt.
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiff shall
have and recover the principal sum of $224,460.00 plus
$31,000.00 attorney's fees for a total Judgment of $255,460.00,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that
upon payment of said Judgment by Defendants Plaintiff shall utilize
from such payment such sums of money as is necessary to pay
Plaintiff's first mortgage on the property in its entirety and Plaintiff
shall execute a quit deed to the property known as #35 Betty Drive,
Scott City, Mo. to the Defendants.
On all claims by Defendants against Plaintiffs [sic] the [c]ourt finds
in favor of Plaintiffs [sic]. In this regard if the Defendants have
recorded any documents that create a lien on #35 Betty Drive said
lien shall be deemed a nullity by this [c]ourt and Defendant shall be
ordered to forthwith release said lien, if any.
In the event Defendants fail to make payment as required by the
[c]ourt herein execution shall lie for the full amount of the
Judgment of $255,460.00 plus interest at the maximum legal rate.
3
Costs are hereby taxed against Defendants. Plaintiff shall submit its
costs within 30 days hereof.
The amounts stated in that portion of the judgment did not match the findings
regarding the damage sustained stated in the trial court's findings of facts and
conclusions of law. Given the complexity of this case, this judgment is too
indefinite to be a final judgment.
"A judgment which is indefinite is void and unenforceable." Kitsmiller
Const. Co., Inc. v. Lloyd's Cleaners, Inc., 945 S.W.2d 616, 617 (Mo. App.
S.D. 1997). Where a petition seeks damages from several defendants in
numerous counts, a general statement that judgment is entered for the plaintiff,
without specifying which defendants must pay which amounts, is indefinite and
does not constitute a final judgment. Id.; see also Cook v. Curtis, 837 S.W.2d
29, 30-31 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992).
In the present case, we cannot determine from reading the judgment
which counts justified the granting of relief and which Defendants must pay each
amount. Some of the counts had to have been stated in the alternative because
they sought damages for the faults in the home, but the judgment does not
specify which counts were granted. Moreover, some of the counts in the petition
sought damages against all Defendants, while some sought damages against Ms.
Brackett alone or against the Jacksons or against Mr. Jackson alone. However,
the judgment simply lumps all Defendants and all the counts together. If the
judgment is read as requiring Defendants to pay the damages together, it goes
beyond the relief requested, as some counts did not request damages against all
Defendants. If the judgment was intended to award particular damages from
4
particular parties, it is impossible to determine how those damages are to be
apportioned from the judgment as written. Under these circumstances, the
judgment is too indefinite to be a final judgment.
Decision
The appeal is dismissed for lack of a final judgment.
MARY W. SHEFFIELD, C.J. – OPINION AUTHOR
DANIEL E. SCOTT, P.J. – CONCURS
JEFFREY W. BATES, J. – CONCURS
5