commits error in Missouri

2015“Where multiple courts have subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the issue and the parties, a court commits an error of law if exercising its authority to enter a judgment in the case results in wasteful duplication or inconsistent judgments.” In re J.M.J., 404 S.W.3d 423, 430 (Mo.App.W.D.2013).

2015“Where multiple courts have subject matter and personal jurisdiction over the issue and the parties, a court commits an error of law if exercising its authority to enter a judgment in the case results in wasteful duplication or inconsistent judgments.” In re J.M.J., 404 S.W.3d 423, 430 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013).

2005But she points to White v. White, which states that even if the parties do not request appointment of a guardian ad li-tem, the trial court commits error by not doing so, sua sponte, when abuse or neglect is alleged. 952 S.W.2d 320, 322 (Mo.App.1997) (citing Gilman v. Gilman, 851 S.W.2d 15,17 (Mo.App.1993)).

1997Gilman v. Gilman, 851 S.W.2d 15, 17 (Mo.App.

2015“It is axiomatic that inconsistent judgments cannot ordinarily exist together.” Kelly, 245 S.W.3d at 314 .

2015“It is axiomatic that inconsistent judgments cannot ordinarily exist together.” Kelly, 245 S.W.3d at 314 .

2020In this regard, the HOA cites Desu v. Lewis, 427 S.W.3d 843, 844-45 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014), to support its claim that a trial court commits error when not awarding attorney’s fees where a contract provides for their payment.

2020Id. at 845 (“The Agreement contains language that states: ‘In the event of litigation between the parties, the prevailing party shall recover, in addition to damages or equitable relief, the cost of litigation including reasonable attorney’s fees’.”); see also Brown v. Brown-Thill, 437 S.W.3d 344, 346 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (finding award mandatory where agreement between the parties stated, “If either party pursues any claim, dispute, or controversy against the other in a proceeding other than the arbitration provided herein, the responding party shall be entitled to dismissal or injunctive rel

2020Id. at 845 (“The Agreement contains language that states: ‘In the event of litigation between the parties, the prevailing party shall recover, in addition to damages or equitable relief, the cost of litigation including reasonable attorney’s fees’.”); see also Brown v. Brown-Thill, 437 S.W.3d 344, 346 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (finding award mandatory where agreement between the parties stated, “If either party pursues any claim, dispute, or controversy against the other in a proceeding other than the arbitration provided herein, the responding party shall be entitled to dismissal or injunctive rel

2011See Keys v. Nigro, 913 S.W.2d 947, 950 (Mo.App.1996) (analyzing previous version of statute that contains the language "dismissal without prejudice" for noncompliance with the statute).

2011See Keys v. Nigro, 913 S.W.2d 947, 950 (Mo.App.1996) (analyzing previous version of statute that contains the language "dismissal without prejudice” for noncompliance with the statute).

2010Opies Milk Haulers v. Twin City Fire Ins., 755 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Mo.App.1988); Busch & Latta Painting Corporation v. State Highway Commission of Missouri, 597 S.W.2d 189, 198 (Mo.App.1980).

2010Opies Milk Haulers v. Twin City Fire Ins., 755 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Mo.App.1988); Busch & Latta Painting Corporation v. State Highway Commission of Missouri, 597 S.W.2d 189, 198 (Mo.App.1980).

2008State v. Haslar, 887 S.W.2d 610, 617 (Mo.App.

2006State v. Mickle, 164 S.W.3d 33, 61 (Mo.App.

2005But she points to White v. White, which states that even if the parties do not request appointment of a guardian ad li-tem, the trial court commits error by not doing so, sua sponte, when abuse or neglect is alleged. 952 S.W.2d 320, 322 (Mo.App.1997) (citing Gilman v. Gilman, 851 S.W.2d 15,17 (Mo.App.1993)).

1994See also In re Marriage of Johnson, 856 S.W.2d 921, 927 (Mo.App.S.D.1993) (“A trial court commits error in failing to consider investment income in determining whether or not a spouse is deserving of maintenance.”); In re Marriage of Tappan, 856 S.W.2d 362, 367 (Mo.App.S.D.1993).

1994See also In re Marriage of Johnson, 856 S.W.2d 921, 927 (Mo.App.S.D.1993) (“A trial court commits error in failing to consider investment income in determining whether or not a spouse is deserving of maintenance.”); In re Marriage of Tappan, 856 S.W.2d 362, 367 (Mo.App.S.D.1993).

1991The amended motion failed to meet the requirement of verification found in Rule 29.15(d): “The movant shall verify the motion, declaring that he has listed all grounds for relief known to him and acknowledging his understanding that he waives any ground for relief known to him that is not listed in the motion.” In Kilgore v. State, 791 S.W.2d 393, 395 (Mo.1990), the Missouri Supreme Court held that an unverified Rule 29.15 motion cannot invoke the court’s jurisdiction and the trial court commits no error in denying relief based on such a motion.

1989Gawne v. State, 729 S.W.2d 497, 501 (Mo.App.1987) (construing similar language contained in Rule 27.26 (repealed)).

1980State v. Reynolds, 345 Mo. 79 , 131 S.W.2d 552, 557 (Mo.1939); State v. Roberts, 593 S.W.2d 626, 628 (Mo.App.1980); State v. Ax, 546 S.W.2d 549, 550 (Mo.App.1977).

1980State v. Reynolds, 345 Mo. 79 , 131 S.W.2d 552, 557 (Mo.1939); State v. Roberts, 593 S.W.2d 626, 628 (Mo.App.1980); State v. Ax, 546 S.W.2d 549, 550 (Mo.App.1977).

1980State v. Reynolds, 345 Mo. 79 , 131 S.W.2d 552, 557 (Mo.1939); State v. Roberts, 593 S.W.2d 626, 628 (Mo.App.1980); State v. Ax, 546 S.W.2d 549, 550 (Mo.App.1977).

1980State v. Reynolds, 345 Mo. 79 , 131 S.W.2d 552, 557 (Mo.1939); State v. Roberts, 593 S.W.2d 626, 628 (Mo.App.1980); State v. Ax, 546 S.W.2d 549, 550 (Mo.App.1977).

1978State v. Boyd, 498 S.W.2d 532, 534 [4] (Mo.1973).

1978On oral argument, counsel contended that the testimony of Rhonda to the effect that Moore told her that Burl shot Lane was hearsay and hence inadmissible. [13] See also the argument of the prosecutor in State v. Woodard, 499 S.W.2d 553, 564 (Mo. App.1973).

1958Sup.Ct.R. 28.08; State v. Dowling, 348 Mo. 589 , 154 S.W.2d 749, 753 [1]; State v. Crader, Mo., 225 S.W.2d 353 [1], There is no presumption that a trial court commits error when an exhibit is admitted in evidence (State v. Hathaway, 115 Mo. 36 , 21 S.W. 1081, 1083 (2)), and there is nothing before us to sustain this charge of error against the trial court.

1958Sup.Ct.R. 28.08; State v. Dowling, 348 Mo. 589 , 154 S.W.2d 749, 753 [1]; State v. Crader, Mo., 225 S.W.2d 353 [1], There is no presumption that a trial court commits error when an exhibit is admitted in evidence (State v. Hathaway, 115 Mo. 36 , 21 S.W. 1081, 1083 (2)), and there is nothing before us to sustain this charge of error against the trial court.

1958Sup.Ct.R. 28.08; State v. Dowling, 348 Mo. 589 , 154 S.W.2d 749, 753 [1]; State v. Crader, Mo., 225 S.W.2d 353 [1], There is no presumption that a trial court commits error when an exhibit is admitted in evidence (State v. Hathaway, 115 Mo. 36 , 21 S.W. 1081, 1083 (2)), and there is nothing before us to sustain this charge of error against the trial court.

1958Sup.Ct.R. 28.08; State v. Dowling, 348 Mo. 589 , 154 S.W.2d 749, 753 [1]; State v. Crader, Mo., 225 S.W.2d 353 [1], There is no presumption that a trial court commits error when an exhibit is admitted in evidence (State v. Hathaway, 115 Mo. 36 , 21 S.W. 1081, 1083 (2)), and there is nothing before us to sustain this charge of error against the trial court.

1958State v. Lindner, Mo., 282 S.W.2d 547, 553 [13]; State v. Farrar, Mo., 285 S.W. 1000 , 1003 [6].