Case Name: Chang K. VONSMITH, Respondent, v. John M. VONSMITH, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1984-02-15
Citations: 666 S.W.2d 424
Docket Number: No. 64874
Parties: Chang K. VONSMITH, Respondent, v. John M. VONSMITH, Appellant.
Judges: WELLIVER, HIGGINS, GUNN and BILLINGS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 666
Pages: 424–426

Head Matter:
Chang K. VONSMITH, Respondent, v. John M. VONSMITH, Appellant.
No. 64874.
Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.
Feb. 15, 1984.
Anne-Marie Clarke, St. Louis, for appellant.
Jane A. Hobbs, St. Louis, for respondent.

Opinion:
DONNELLY, Judge.
Appellant, John M. Vonsmith, was personally served with summons and a petition for dissolution, but filed no responsive pleading. A default judgment was entered against him on October 14, 1981. He did not file a motion to set aside or vacate the decree. He did file a notice of appeal in the Eastern District of the Court of Appeals on November 20, 1981.
The cause was heard and submitted to Judges Reinhard, Crist and Crandall. Judges Reinhard and Crandall held the view that no appeal lay from the default judgment because no motion to set aside or vacate had been filed. See Blackmore v. Blackmore, 639 S.W.2d 268 (Mo.App.1982). Judge Crist dissented. The following order was then entered and signed by all three judges:
ORDER
After reviewing the majority and dissenting opinions, we have jointly concluded that the issue of the limits of the right to appeal from a default judgment (in the absence of a motion to set aside) is of such general interest and importance that the case should be transferred to the Supreme Court. We hereby order this case transferred to the Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 83.02.
We hold that a default judgment is not appealable in the absence of a motion to set aside or vacate. A rationale for such rule was articulated in New York in 1816:
This is a just and wise rule; for the very theory and constitution of a Court of appellate jurisdiction only, is the correction of errors which a Court below may have committed; and a Court below cannot be said to have committed an error when their judgment was never called into exercise, and the point of law was never taken into consideration, but was abandoned, by the acquiescence or default of the party who raised it. To assume the discussion and consideration of a matter of law, which the party would not discuss in the [trial court], and which that Court, therefore, did not consider, is to assume, in effect, original jurisdiction. It is impossible to calculate all the mischiefs to which such a course of proceeding would lead. Either party would then be able, in every case, to bring his question of law, as new, undis-cussed points, before this Court. This would, indeed, be leaving the [trial court], with its plentitude of power, to enjoy the otium cum dignitate in harmless repose; but this was never the intention of the constitution. That Court was created, with all its competence and organs, to be the great trustee, the tutelary guardian of the vast body of the common law. What good motive can a party have, who will not argue a law question in the [trial court] but insists on bringing it here to be exclusively discussed? It is according to the genius of our whole judicial establishment, that the Court which originally decides a cause, should be subject to review by another Court; but on the plan pursued in the present case, this Court, though only a Court of review, will be the first and the last, originally, and finally, to decide the law. .
Gelston v. Hoyt, 13 Johns. 561, 566-67 (1816).
The case of Clader v. City of Neosho, 238 Mo.App. 999, 192 S.W.2d 508 (1946) was transferred to this Court by the Springfield Court of Appeals because of the importance of a procedural question. This Court ruled the question and transferred the cause back to the court of appeals. Clader v. City of Neosho, 354 Mo. 1190, 193 S.W.2d 620 (banc 1946). And the present cause should be transferred back to the Eastern District of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.
WELLIVER, HIGGINS, GUNN and BILLINGS, JJ., concur.
BLACKMAR, J., concurs in part and dissents in part in separate opinion filed.