Court Opinion

ID: 9630192
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:04:38.554355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:33.470386
License: Public Domain

JOHN E. PARRISH, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached in the appeal by Eleanor Harp, No. 28865, regarding property rights of Wayne Harp in certain real estate. I do so because the judgment made no change to legal title to the non-marital real estate in question. I concur in the part of the opinion directed to Chester Harp’s appeal, No. 28870.
There appears to have been no issue raised in the trial court or on appeal with respect to the procedure utilized by Eleanor Harp in challenging the property rights of Wayne Harp as part of a dissolution of marriage action to which Wayne Harp was otherwise not a party. It does not appear that Chester Harp claimed any interest in that real estate. As such, I question whether that claim should have been part of the dissolution of marriage *691case.* For that reason, I concur only in the result in No. 28865. I fully concur in the part of the principal opinion directed to No. 28870.

 In my opinion, including a third person as a party in a dissolution of marriage action should occur only where that party is required in order to determine issues related to the dissolution action, such as resolving questions related to property distribution (see, e.g., Engeman v. Engeman, 123 S.W.3d 227 (Mo. App.2003)), or addressing whether child custody should be awarded to a third party (see, e.g., Walters v. Walters, 113 S.W.3d 214 (Mo. App.2003)).