- 9 -
ability would terminate upon the death of the person for whom
legal services had been rendered.4
2. Validity of the Award
Petitioner argues that a final Order of Dissolution would
have been required for the PDL to have any effect and that the
dismissal of the first dissolution proceeding removed the court’s
authority to order him to pay attorney’s fees. We disagree. It
is true that a court loses jurisdiction over a dissolution action
if one of the parties dies before the entry of a final Order.
See, e.g., Bilgere v. Bilgere, 128 S.W.3d 617 (Mo. Ct. App.
2004); Winters v. Cooper, 827 S.W.2d 233 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991);
Parkhurst v. Parkhurst, 799 S.W.2d 159, 161 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
But while a court may lose jurisdiction over the dissolution
action, collateral and other issues may remain properly before
the court. See, e.g., Fischer v. Seibel, 733 S.W.2d 469 (Mo. Ct.
App. 1987) (reiterating that the parties are entitled to have
property rights decided even though one of the parties has died);
State ex rel. Weber v. McLaughlin, 157 S.W.2d 800 (Mo. Ct. App.
1942) (allowing the court to retain jurisdiction over an order to
a third party to return property despite the fact that the
4 Although there is caselaw suggesting that the obligation
to pay attorney’s fees not yet earned but awarded prospectively
on account would be subject to modification, see, e.g., Muegler
v. Muegler, 784 S.W.2d 839 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990), there are no
facts in this case that would suggest the $5,000 had not yet been
earned by Mr. Dubin at the time petitioner was ordered to pay
him.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011