La Crosse argues that, even if the amended judgment is the operative judgment, its notice of appeal is sufficient under Rule 81.05(b), which allows for prematurely filed notices of appeal to be deemed "filed immediately after the time the judgment becomes final for the purpose of appeal." In making this argument, La Crosse relies on a 1995 opinion from the Missouri Supreme Court in L.J.B. v. L.W.B., 908 S.W.2d 349 (Mo. banc 1995), wherein the Court held: "Where the trial court has entered a judgment appearing to dispose of all issues in the case, giving the appearance of a judgment under Rule 74.01, followed by a limited reopening of evidence under Rule 78.01, the amendment of the judgment as authorized by Rule 73.01(a)(5) is not the entry of an entirely new judgment." Id. at 351 (emphasis added).
The notice of appeal shall specify the parties taking the appeal. Rule 81.08(a). However, “ ‘[t]echnical adherence to the formal averments of a notice of appeal is not jurisdictional, and the averments are to be liberally construed to permit appellate review so long as the opposing party is not misled to his or her irreparable harm.’ ” McCrainey v. Kansas City Missouri Sch. Dist., 337 S.W.3d 746, 751 (Mo.App.W.D.2011), quoting L.J.B. v. L.W.B., 908 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Mo. banc 1995). Here, the Appellants are similarly situated, are bringing identical claims, and are seeking identical relief. Moto was not misled in any way and will not suffer any irreparable harm by allowing Mooradian and the Kirchoff Limited Partnership to proceed as parties on appeal. See also Tillis v. City of Branson, 945 S.W.2d 447, 448 (Mo. banc 1997) (finding no jurisdictional defect and treating the appellant's suggestions in opposition to the respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal based on an untimely notice of appeal, as a timely filed motion seeking a special order permitting a late filing of the notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 81.07(a)).
Id. "Technical adherence to the formal averments of a notice of appeal is not jurisdictional ...." L.J.B. v. L.W.B. , 908 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Mo. banc 1995). In his appeal, P.D.E. was entitled to raise issues concerning not only the October 6 restitution order but also the circuit court's underlying adjudication of delinquency and its imposition of other dispositional measures in the March 2, 2021 order, because the March 2 order was interlocutory until made final on October 6.
Here, Father timely filed a Notice of Appeal, and "once such notice is timely filed, the appeal becomes effective." L.J.B. v. L.W.B. , 908 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Mo. banc 1995). Therefore, we reject Respondent's argument that Father's appeal should be dismissed on this basis.
The notice of appeal shall specify the parties taking the appeal. Rule 81.08(a). However, “ ‘[t]echnical adherence to the formal averments of a notice of appeal is not jurisdictional, and the averments are to be liberally construed to permit appellate review so long as the opposing party is not misled to his or her irreparable harm.’ ” McCrainey v. Kansas City Missouri Sch. Dist., 337 S.W.3d 746, 751 (Mo.App.W.D.2011), quoting L.J.B. v. L.W.B., 908 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Mo. banc 1995). Here, the Appellants are similarly situated, are bringing identical claims, and are seeking identical relief. Moto was not misled in any way and will not suffer any irreparable harm by allowing Mooradian and the Kirchoff Limited Partnership to proceed as parties on appeal. See also Tillis v. City of Branson, 945 S.W.2d 447, 448 (Mo. banc 1997) (finding no jurisdictional defect and treating the appellant's suggestions in opposition to the respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal based on an untimely notice of appeal, as a timely filed motion seeking a special order permitting a late filing of the notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 81.07(a)).
Wills v. Whitlock, 139 S.W.3d 643, 658 (Mo.App. W.D. 2004). Furthermore, "[t]echnical adherence to the formal averments of a notice of appeal is not jurisdictional, and the averments are to be liberally construed to permit appellate review so long as the opposing party is not misled to his or her irreparable harm." L.J.B. v. L.W.B., 908 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Mo. banc 1995). In Wills, this court found that where the appealing party's notice of appeal did not expressly refer to a certain order of the trial court, but the party had attached a copy of the order to its notice of appeal, the party had sufficiently complied with Rule 81.08(a).
For these reasons, our Supreme Court has expressly held that "[t]echnical adherence to the formal averments of a notice of appeal is not jurisdictional, and the averments are to be liberally construed to permit appellate review so long as the opposing party is not misled to his or her irreparable harm." L.J.B. v. L.W.B., 908 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Mo. banc 1995) (emphasis added). Applying these principles in the case sub judice, it is clear that the Commission's order is erroneous and unauthorized by law and must be reversed despite 8 CSR 10-5.010(3)'s vague and uncertain suggestion of a mandatory signature requirement.
The notice of appeal was filed before judgment was issued in compliance with Rule 74.01(a). When notice of appeal has been filed prematurely, the notice shall be considered as filed immediately after the time the judgment becomes final for the purposes of appeal. L.J.B. v. L.W.B., 908 S.W.2d 349, 350 (Mo.banc 1995). The notice of appeal was prematurely filed, but the trial court entered judgment and the notice took effect thereafter.
"Technical adherence to the formal averments of a notice of appeal is not jurisdictional, and the averments are to be liberally construed to permit appellate review so long as the opposing party is not misled to his or her irreparable harm." L.J.B. v. L.W.B., 908 S.W.2d 349, 351 (Mo. banc 1995). "`Consequently, it is the duty of an appellate court freely to exercise its jurisdiction to provide a review on the merits in every instance that it may properly do so.'"
However, under Rule 81.05(b), "[i]n any case in which a notice of appeal has been filed prematurely, such notice shall be considered as filed immediately after the time the judgment becomes final for the purposes of appeal." SeealsoL.J.B. v. L.W.B. , 908 S.W.2d 349, 350 (Mo.banc 1995). The judgment here became final and appealable thirty days after February 1, the date the trial court added Exhibit 9 to the October 10 judgment to divide and distribute the parties' personal property.