Section 1.1 Enforcing the Court's Judgment

• Library: Creditors' Remedies (2009 Ed. + 2014 Supp)

A. (§1.1) Enforcing the Court's Judgment

Although § 511.020, RSMo 2000, defines a judgment as the "final determination of the right[s] of the parties in the action," it remains counsel's responsibility to convert the judgment into action such as specific performance or, more commonly, collecting a monetary judgment on behalf of the successful litigant. Unless this part of the process is brought to fruition, all that has gone before is merely window dressing. In the civil context, it is the enforcement of a judgment that perhaps best represents the power of the judicial system to resolve the problems brought before it.

In this chapter, "plaintiff" and "defendant" may be used interchangeably with "judgment creditor" and "judgment debtor," respectively. Any reference to "sheriff" should be understood to be a reference to the appropriate levying officer.

As to what constitutes a judgment, several cases underscore the fact that counsel needs to make certain not only that the judgment is so denominated by the trial court but also that it is appropriately signed or initialed. In Evans v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, 119 S.W.3d 671 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003), the Southern District held that a writing denominated as a judgment and initialed by the trial court judge met the requirements of Rule 74.01(a). This should be contrasted with Logan v. Sho-Me Power Electric Cooperative, 83 S.W.3d 109 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002). In Logan, the trial judge made a docket entry on September 24, 2001. The docket entry was denominated a judgment but was neither signed nor initialed by the judge and, consequently, did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 74.01(a). On February 19, 2002, a subsequent docket entry was signed by the trial judge but was not denominated a judgment. The Southern District held that, while the subsequent docket entry purported to finalize a multiple-party case for purposes of appeal, because it had not been denominated a judgment, it was not a final judgment as contemplated by Rule 74.01(a).

In Nuspl v. Pinkston, 84 S.W.3d 131 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002), the trial court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss by issuing an order labeled "Final Order." But the document was not denominated a judgment either in the caption or within the body of the order. While a docket entry referred to "entry of ‘judgment'" for the defendant, this entry was not signed or initialed by the trial court judge. Under these facts, the Eastern District of the Court of Appeals held that there was no writing signed by the judge and denominated a judgment.

In Grissum v. Soldi, 87 S.W.3d 915 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002), a docket entry denominated a judgment was not signed, although the typewritten initials of the judge were affixed at the end of the docket entry. The Southern District held that typewritten initials of the judge are insufficient to satisfy the signature requirement.

In Brooks v. Brooks, 98 S.W.3d 530 (Mo. banc 2003), the Court concluded that a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), which may be obtained after and under a previously...