S.J.M., Respondent, v. T.J.F., Appellant. (2026)

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a petition, with prejudice, to dissolve a Colorado common law marriage between T.J.F. (“Mother”) and S.J.M. (“Father”). The circuit court dismissed the action on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction. This Court holds that the circuit court has jurisdiction. For that reason only, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

Factual and Procedural Background

Father filed a petition for paternity, custody, and support of the four minor children he has with Mother. Mother answered Father's petition and filed a counterpetition. Mother's counter-petition alleged that she and Father entered into a common law marriage in Colorado and sought to dissolve that marriage.

Father filed a motion to dismiss Mother's dissolution petition for lack of jurisdiction. Father asserted they never entered into a common law marriage in Colorado, and he never intended to enter into a marital relationship with Mother. Father argued that, because Missouri law states “[c]ommon–law marriages shall be null and void,” Section 451.040.5, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to proceed.

The circuit court held an evidentiary hearing. Father and Mother both testified about their relationship. The record does not show that any party was permitted the opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the hearing.

Following the hearing, the circuit court dismissed the counter-petition, finding that it lacked jurisdiction because the parties had not entered into a common law marriage. The circuit court recognized that Colorado law permits common law marriages when specific factors are met. However, the circuit court found Father and Mother's conduct did not reflect that of a married couple and there was “no mutual, express, present agreement between the parties to enter into a marital relationship.”

The judgment was denominated as final for appeal. Mother appeals.

Analysis

The circuit court erred in determining it lacked “jurisdiction” to proceed. Missouri courts recognize only two types of jurisdiction: personal and subject-matter. J.C.W. ex rel. Webb v. Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d 249, 252 (Mo. banc 2009). Personal jurisdiction refers to the court's authority to “require a person to respond to a legal proceeding.” Id. at 253. There is no argument that the court lacked personal jurisdiction here.

“Subject matter jurisdiction ․ [is] the court's authority to render a judgment in a particular category of case.” Id. Article V, section 14 of the Missouri Constitution states, “The circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction over all cases and matters, civil and criminal.” Article V, section 14(a). A petition for dissolution of marriage is a civil case within the circuit courts’ subject matter jurisdiction. Because “the circuit court has subject matter jurisdiction[,]” it “has the authority to hear this dispute.” Wyciskalla, 275 S.W.3d at 254. The circuit court's subject matter jurisdiction is independent of the issue of whether the court can grant the requested relief. Even if “the circuit court lacked constitutional or statutory authority to grant the requested relief, the court would still have subject matter jurisdiction to dispose of the petition by denying the requested relief.” M.S. v. D.S., 454 S.W.3d 900, 900 (Mo. banc 2015).

The circuit court's judgment conflated the concepts of jurisdiction and relief on the merits. For a court to grant a dissolution of marriage, there must first be a marriage to dissolve. In the typical case, this issue goes undisputed and there is no cause for the circuit court to make the determination. But, here, the parties disagree as to whether a marriage was formed. The court must, therefore, determine that issue as part of the merits of the dissolution action just as it must determine any other disputed issue.

Mother alleged in her counter-petition that she entered into a common law marriage with Father. Mother should be permitted to proceed on this theory, conduct discovery to support it, and ultimately try it to the court. If, after discovery and trial, the court determines the parties did not enter into a common law marriage, that is simply a determination on the merits that Mother is not entitled to the relief requested.

Conclusion

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded because the circuit court has jurisdiction to resolve the counter-petition's dissolution allegations on its merits.

John P. Torbitzky, Presiding Judge

James M. Dowd, Judge and Lisa P. Page, Judge, concur.