disposed of this matter on its merits. The January 20, 2005, judgment was dependent on the trial court’s prior jurisdictional authority to adjudicate Appellant’s claims. “If a court cannot try a question except under particular conditions or unless petitioned in a particular way, it has no jurisdiction until such conditions exist or unless the court is approached in a manner which bestows jurisdiction.” State ex rel. Robinson v. Crouch, 616 S.W.2d 587, 592 (Mo.App.1981). In the instant matter, the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter the second order. Point dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss Appellant’s appeal and remand the matter to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion. SHRUM, P.J„ and BATES, C.J., concur. 1 . Rule 74.06(b) states: On motion and upo 02)
holding that because trial courts order did not dispose of the defendants counterclaim that order was not a final judgment that would support an appeal holding that even an order that establishes entitlement to a judgment is not final unless it  actually enters or renders a judgment  or includes specific language of finality necessary for a judgment  to be considered final for purposes of an appeal holding that there is no final judgment where a memorandum is not denominated judgment or decree as required by rule 7401a holding that an order not denominated a judgment is not final for purposes of appeal holding that an order pending divorce is not a final judgment that creates a right of appeal