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.
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.
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.