address it in any manner. “A judgment’s silence on an issue should not be deemed a disposition of that issue except where a ruling on one issue necessarily constitutes a ruling on the other.” In re Carl McDonald Revocable Trust, 899 S.W.2d 138, 139 (Mo.App.1995). Here, the trial court’s entry of a declaratory judgment that found Dewey owed Bituminous $38,500 principal plus accrued interest did not rule or dispose of the attorney fee issue. Because the portion of Bituminous’s declaratory judgment count seeking attorney fees is left open for future determination, and the trial court did not make the appealability determination under Rule 74.01(b), a final and appealable judgment does not exist; consequently, this court is without jurisdiction. See Artisan Construction, 975 S.W.2d at 958 (<HOLDING>); Ackerson, 961 S.W.2d at 934-35 (holding a
holding that the exception to the general rule applied even though the court did not specifically rule the evidence was inadmissible because the ruling was definitive and reached the ultimate issue of admissibility recognizing that the trial court is not precluded from enforcing its judgment even though an appeal is pending holding that the court of appeals correctly stated the public policy exception but erroneously concluded that the exception did not apply recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception holding a judgment was unappealable because an attorney fee issue remained pending and the trial court did not invoke the exception stated in rule 7401b