In deciding whether a case is moot, an appellate court is allowed to consider matters outside the record. Bratton v. Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 236 (Mo.App. 1998); Wilson, 955 S.W.2d at 812. In this case, the appellant filed his petition in quo warranto, citing Rule 98, seeking the respondent's removal from the office of Clay County prosecuting attorney.
"Mootness indicates that a controversy existed, which was properly before the court for resolution, but was extinguished by the occurrence of some event, rendering the controversy academic." Margolis v. Steinberg, 242 S.W.3d 394, 399 (Mo. App. 2007) (quoting Bratton v. Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Mo. App. 1998)). "In deciding whether a case is moot, an appellate court is allowed to consider matters outside the record."
Before we address Employer's points, we must address the Division's motion to dismiss Claimant's appeal. SeeBratton v.Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Mo. App. W.D. 1998) ("It is necessary to take up the motion to dismiss the appeal before considering the points raised on appeal"). "A case is rendered moot and should be dismissed when an event transpires causing a decision by this Court to be unnecessary or granting its relief impossible."
Before we address Employer's points, we must address the Division's motion to dismiss Claimant's appeal. See Bratton v. Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Mo.App. W.D.1998) (“It is necessary to take up the motion to dismiss the appeal before considering the points raised on appeal”). “A case is rendered moot and should be dismissed when an event transpires causing a decision by this Court to be unnecessary or granting its relief impossible.”
Accordingly, the Stipulation has expired and the terms of the parenting plan control. Therefore, no internal conflict exists and Margolis' argument appears to be moot. Appellate courts generally do not consider issues that are moot. Bratton v. Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 236 (Mo.App.W.D.1998). "Mootness indicates that a controversy existed, which was properly before the court for resolution, but was extinguished by the occurrence of some event, rendering the controversy academic."
The cases that Appellant attempts to rely upon in arguing to the contrary are not on point and do not support the statements attributed to them. Appellant's reliance on Bratton v. Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Mo.App.W.D. 1998) is misplaced. In Bratton, this Court expressly declined to address whether the defendant's placement in a drug treatment facility during a 120-day call back period under § 559.115.2 qualified as a "remand" under the version of § 558.019.2 in effect at the time.
Issues that are moot are not subject to consideration by this court. Bratton v. Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 236 (Mo.App. 1998). This rule applies to cases in which child visitation is at issue.
Except for issues of public importance or when a case becomes moot after submission and argument (exceptions not present here), issues that are moot are not subject to consideration on appeal. Bratton v. Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 236[5,7] (Mo.App. 1998). Considering the factual context revealed by this record, no reason appears to compel joinder of Nixon, Wilson, and Barton, in their representative capacities, as parties to this litigation.
"Issues that are moot are not subject to consideration." Bratton v. Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 236[5] (Mo.App. 1998). This rule attends in domestic relations cases, Schulte v.Schulte, 949 S.W.2d 225, 226-27 (Mo.App. 1997), including those in which child visitation is an issue.
The trial court declared that the City was prohibited from collecting the 1996 installment and that the first installment was the 1997 installment. Because this claim involves no controversy, it presents nothing for appellate review . Bratton v.Mitchell, 979 S.W.2d 232, 235-36 (Mo.App.W.D. 1998). We, therefore, decline review of the timing claim in Point I(B).