From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilkinson v. Wilkinson

Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District
Jan 31, 1977
546 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)

Opinion

No. KCD 27837.

January 31, 1977.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT, CARROLL COUNTY, ARTHUR W. ROGERS, J.

James A. Rahm, Hensley, Rahm Rahm, Warrensburg, for appellant.

No appearance for respondent.

Before WASSERSTROM, P. J., and SOMERVILLE and TURNAGE, JJ.


Steven Wilkinson appeals from an order "retaxing costs" to award Patricia Wilkinson attorney fees. Steven contends the court was without jurisdiction because the order was made more than thirty days after the entry of judgment and no post trial motion was filed; and that attorney fees are not costs. Reversed.

Steven and Patricia were divorced in 1971. By the decree, Patricia was granted the custody of the two minor children born of the marriage. In 1973, Patricia filed a motion to modify the divorce decree by increasing the amount of child support and for an award of attorney fees for the prosecution of that motion. Steven countered with a motion to modify asking that custody of the two children be changed to vest such custody in him.

After a hearing, the court entered an order on August 1, 1974, in which the motion of each party was denied. No post trial motion, as authorized by Rule 73.01, subd. 1(c), was made. Thereafter on September 18, 1974, Patricia filed a motion to "retax costs" in which she recited the court's order overruling the motions made no provision for the payment of her attorney. The motion concluded with a prayer for the court's order retaxing the costs to include an attorney fee of $300, to be paid by Steven as a part of the costs.

The record does not show any hearing was held on the latter motion, but on January 10, 1975, the court entered its order which found it had "inadvertently omitted consideration of allowance and taxing of costs as and for attorney fee." The court then found a reasonable fee would be $300 and ordered the final decree theretofore entered to be modified "to extent of taxing as costs on defendant in sum of $300 as attorney fee."

Steven first contends the court's order to retax as costs the attorney fee is invalid because the court was without jurisdiction to enter such order because it was made more than thirty days after the court's order overruling the motions. He contends under Rule 81.05 the order became final thirty days after it was made on August 1, 1974.

Steven's argument is well taken. Under Rule 81.05 the court's order made on August 1, 1974, became final thirty days thereafter. After that time the trial court had no further jurisdiction in this matter because no post trial motion was filed. For that reason the order which purported to "retax costs", but which in reality resulted in the order being modified, is invalid.

There is a further reason the order "retaxing costs" is not valid. Generally attorney fees are not considered as costs. State of Missouri ex rel. Cain v. Mitchell, 543 S.W.2d 785 (Mo. banc 1976). This is true under the Dissolution of Marriage Act because § 452.355, RSMo 1975 Supp., treats court costs and attorney fees separately. Thus, under the general rule and under the specific treatment given to attorney fees and court costs as being separate and distinct, the court could not award attorney fees by "retaxing the costs." The judgment is reversed.

All concur.


Summaries of

Wilkinson v. Wilkinson

Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District
Jan 31, 1977
546 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)
Case details for

Wilkinson v. Wilkinson

Case Details

Full title:PATRICIA KAY WILKINSON, RESPONDENT, v. STEVEN DUANE WILKINSON, APPELLANT

Court:Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City District

Date published: Jan 31, 1977

Citations

546 S.W.2d 737 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977)

Citing Cases

Washington Univ. v. Royal Crown Bottling

Defendants also argue that the University may not collect attorney's fees because it failed to specifically…

Troupe v. Board of Ed., St. Louis

The case law is just as explicit, holding that once the judgment of the court becomes final upon the…