1. This is an independent action in equity for a declaratory judgement for relief from the order of Commissioner Winston Davis on April 4^th 1995 and any other order that was improperly made in the divorce case number 194DR3198. This order was an order of temporary maintenance in the divorce proceedings between Plaintiff Marc Perkel (hereinafter "Plaintiff") and Defendant Vicki Stringfellow (hereinafter "Defendant"). The orders caused the Plaintiff to have to pay to the Defendant almost $40,000 in separate maintenance, car and health insurance, credit card payments, and land payments on property later given to the Defendant.
2. The case record contains a hand written order for separate maintenance. This order is unsigned and undated but is copied into the court docket that dated it on April 4^th 1995 and it is presumed that the unsigned order is from Commissioner Davis.
3. Rule 74.01(a) indicates that a judge must sign an order of the court.
4. The April 4^th 1995 order was not signed; therefore, a judge did not sign it.
5. Commissioner Davis is a commissioner, not a judge.
6. Article V, section 1 of the state constitution vests the judicial power of this state in this Court, the court of appeals, and the circuit courts. These courts are composed of judges, not commissioners. Missouri Constitution article V, sections 2, 13, 15, and 16.
7. A commissioner can not enter an order, a commissioner can only make findings and recommendations.
8. Although this commissioner presumably issued the unsigned order, a judge did not sign the order.
9. Because a judge did not sign the order, there was no order. The order is void.
10. On three occasions, (10-16-95, 11-10-95, and 11-20-95) Plaintiff filed motions to have a hearing before a judge to review and to clarify the maintenance order.
11. Plaintiff was denied judicial review of the maintenance order.
12. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant almost $40,000 dollars believing that he was acting under a valid court order.
13. Because the order is void, the money paid to the Defendant by the Plaintiff should be refunded or at least applied to the final judgement.
14. Plaintiff believes that these void orders tainted the outcome of the divorce judgement, and that the divorce judgement is based in part on these void orders and therefore the final judgement can't be relied on.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for an order of the court to declare all orders made by Commissioners which were not signed by a judge, and other improper orders and judgements to be void.

Marc Perkel * Plaintiff * 05-11-98