E.D. 1995). "The final judgment for purposes of appeal in a garnishment case is the order directing the court clerk to pay out the garnished funds or property to the judgment creditor.” Derleth v. Derleth, 432 S.W.3d 771, 776 n.4 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014). [A]n order overruling a motion to quash an execution of a garnishment is a special order after a final judgment in a case, which is independently appealable under § 512.020. Id. Upon review of Appellant’s motion, we conclude that it was actually a motion to quash an execution of a garnishment and refer to it as such. 6 . RSMo Cum, Supp. 2003. 7 . RSMo Cum. Supp. 1949. 8 . The standard of review for a motion court’s judgment on a motion for satisfaction is the same standard. Medlin v. RLC, Inc., 467 S.W.3d 865, 867 (Mo. App. S.D. 2015) (<HOLDING>) (citing Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32
holding appellate courts will affirm the orders of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence  they are against the weight of the evidence or they erroneously declare or apply the law holding that when competent substantial evidence supports a trial courts ruling the appellate court will not secondguess the trial court holding that in judgetried cases the judgment will be affirmed unless it is not supported by substantial evidence is against the weight of the evidence or erroneously declares or applies the law holding unchallenged findings of fact are binding on an appellate court unless the contrary is established as a matter of law or there is no evidence to support the finding holding that the trial courts damages award was against the manifest weight of the evidence because it was based upon inadmissible evidence