SANDVOSS v. SANDVOSS (2026)

Introduction

Ryan Sandvoss (Husband) appeals the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to Sarah Sandvoss (Wife). Husband challenges the trial court's failure to distribute a business. Because the trial court failed to classify and distribute the business, the court's judgment is not final. This Court lacks jurisdiction; therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

Factual and Procedural Background

Husband and Wife married on December 3, 2021, and separated on February 12, 2023. Two months later, Husband filed his petition to dissolve the marriage. In his Statements of Property, Husband listed the assets of the business, which were held in a Bank of America account, under a section titled “Bank Accounts.” Husband also listed R.J. Commercial Funding Inc., d/b/a Gateway Mortgage, the business itself, as a “Partnership Interest.” Wife filed a counter-petition. She also listed the business’ assets and the business in separate sections of her Statements of Property.

At trial, the court admitted Husband's Proposed Division of Property and Debt into evidence, which indicated Husband requested the trial court award the business to him as his separate property and the bank account, classified as marital, to him as well. Husband also testified to the same distribution request.

The court issued its Original Judgment of Dissolution in September 2024. The trial court awarded Husband the business’ bank account. However, the judgment failed to classify and award the business as separate or marital property.

In October 2024, Husband filed his post-trial motion to amend the judgment, wherein he alleged that the trial court failed to classify and award the business as Husband's separate property. The trial court held a hearing on Husband's initial post-trial motion, and in December 2024 issued an Amended Judgment. The court's Amended Judgment again failed to classify the business or distribute it. In January 2025, Husband filed his second post-trial motion to amend the judgment and again requested the court classify and distribute the business. Husband's second post-trial motion to amend the judgment was denied by operation of law pursuant to Rule 78.06.¹ Husband appeals.

Analysis

Although neither party raised the finality of the judgment as an issue, “[w]e are required to examine, sua sponte, whether the trial court's judgment was final[.]” Fregeau v. Fregeau, 580 S.W.3d 92, 96 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (internal citation omitted). The right to appeal is statutory. Chatman v. Chatman, 673 S.W.3d 528, 530 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023) (internal quotation omitted). A prerequisite to appellate review is having a final judgment. See also Section 512.020(5).² “A final, appealable judgment resolves all issues in a case, leaving nothing for future determination.” Archdekin v. Archdekin, 562 S.W.3d 298, 304 (Mo. banc 2018) (internal quotation omitted).

The trial court must distribute “all of the property before the court” for the dissolution decree to constitute a final judgment. Greene v. Greene, 685 S.W.3d 609, 611 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024) (internal quotation omitted). To comply with Section 452.330—Disposition of Property and Debts—the trial court must “make specific findings as to whether each asset before the court is marital property subject to division, is non[ ]marital property to be set aside, or is property over which the dissolution court has no control.” Gillette v. Gillette, 416 S.W.3d 354, 356 (Mo. App. S.D. 2013) (internal quotation omitted). “The trial court's[judgment] is not final if it fails to distribute all of the property identified as marital property or fails to make a determination that the property is nonmarital or nonexistent.” In re Marriage of Singleton, 188 S.W.3d 468, 471 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, “[i]f the issue of undistributed property is discovered before the time for an appeal has expired, the appellate court, when faced with the issue, must dismiss the appeal because the lower court has not exhausted its jurisdiction and rendered a final judgment.” In re Marriage of Nardini, 306 S.W.3d 165, 171 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010) (internal quotation omitted).

Here, the trial court failed to distribute all the property before it. The judgment failed to classify and distribute the business as either separate or marital even though both Husband and Wife listed the business itself and its assets in their property statements, Husband testified at trial about the business, and Husband raised the classification of the business twice in post-trial motions. Because there is unclassified and undistributed property, there is no final judgment. See Gillette, 416 S.W.3d at 356 (dismissing the appeal because the trial court did not distribute the husband's construction business, household goods, and personal property). “[I]f the judgment appealed is not final, we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal.” Waldenville v. Waldenville, 632 S.W.3d 866, 868 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (internal quotation omitted).

Dismissal under these circumstances means this Court recognizes “the authority of the trial court to enter a new judgment covering the entire case.” Gillette, 416 S.W.3d at 356 (internal quotation omitted). Either party may appeal again from the trial court's final judgment. Id. (internal quotation omitted).

Conclusion

The appeal is dismissed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   All Rule references are to Missouri Supreme Court Rules 2024.

2.   All statutory references are to RSMo (2016) unless otherwise noted.

Rebeca Navarro-McKelvey, Presiding Judge

Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., Judge and James M. Dowd, Judge concur.