Notwithstanding the trial court's certification, the denial of a motion to dismiss for a lack of jurisdiction is not a final judgment which can be appealed. Boillot v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Mo. App. 1993). An order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is not an ultimate disposition of an individual claim rendering it a final judgment.
The defendant, Freda Pauline Conyer (Daughter), appeals from the order of the trial court directing her to convey an unlimited life estate in certain real property to Emma E. King (Mother). This action has already twice been the subject of appeal. See Boillot v. Conyer, 826 S.W.2d 95 (Mo.App. 1992) ( Boillot I); and, Boillot v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152 (Mo.App. 1993) ( Boillot II). We reverse and remand.
However, the doctrine is limited to cases in which the issue in controversy has been raised and decided in a prior appeal. Boillot v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Mo. App. 1993); Davis v. J.C. Nichols Co., 761 S.W.2d 735, 741 (Mo. App. 1988). The mere denial of a petition for writ of prohibition where the appellate court issues no opinion is not a conclusive decision on the merits of the issue presented.
On the other hand, a determination by the trial court that it has jurisdiction does not dispose of the issues and parties before the court and is not a final, appealable order, and such a determination is properly reviewable by extraordinary writ. Boillot v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Mo.App.E.D. 1993). In short, the trial court's order dismissing Perry's petition and application was a final, appealable order, properly before this Court on appeal.
Dep't of Natural Res.Parks Recreation v. Lossos , 960 S.W.2d 537, 542 (Mo.App.S.D. 1998) (citing Laclede Gas Co. v. Labor Indus. Relations Comm'n , 657 S.W.2d 644, 649 (Mo.App.E.D. 1983)). Appellate review of questions of law is de novo. Baris v. Layton , 43 S.W.3d 390, 397 (Mo.App.E.D. 2001) (citing Boillot v. Conyer , 861 S.W.2d 152, 155 (Mo.App. 1993)). A reviewing court gives no deference to the trial court's judgment "where resolution of the controversy involves a question of law."
In his second point on cross-appeal, Attorney asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion for increase of judgment to include prejudgment interest in contravention of section 408.020 RSMo 1994. Questions of law are matters reserved for de novo review by the appellate court, and we therefore give no deference to the trial court's judgment in such matters. Boillot v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152, 155 (Mo.App. 1993). Under section 408.020, prejudgment interest is only awardable on liquidated claims.
A decision by this court is the law of the case on all points raised and decided and the decision continues to govern throughout all subsequent proceedings both in the trial and appellate courts. Boillot v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Mo.App.E.D. 1993). No issue decided in the first appeal will be readdressed on the second.
Questions of law are matters reserved for de novo review by the appellate court, and we therefore give no deference to the trial court's judgment in such matters.Boillet v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152, 155 (Mo.App.E.D. 1993). In cases involving breach of implied warranty, the theory on which HB sued Kirchner in Count III of its petition, the court is to apply the lower of the cost-to-repair or diminution-in-value in assessing the amount of damages.
The threshold issue is whether the 1992 order denying SLU's first motion for partial satisfaction of judgment was appealable. SLU relies on Boillot v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152 (Mo.App.E.D. 1993), for the proposition that "[a] determination by a court as to whether or not it has jurisdiction of a matter or issue is not an appealable order, and instead is properly reviewable by an extraordinary writ." However, a careful reading of Boillot reveals that it reaches a different conclusion: "A determination that a court has jurisdiction is not an appealable order and instead is properly reviewable by an extraordinary writ.
"No issue decided in the first appeal will be readdressed on the second." Boillot v. Conyer, 861 S.W.2d 152, 154 (Mo.App.E.D. 1993). Further, the "law of the case" rule also applies to matters which arose prior to the first appeal and which might have been presented at that time but were not.