Bray v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 October 2022
• Docket Number: ED 110570
• Citation: 654 S.W.3d 732
• Parties: Dustin M. BRAY, et al., Appellant, v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC., and Envoy Mortage, LP, et al., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

654 S.W.3d 732

Dustin M. BRAY, et al., Appellant,

v.WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC., and Envoy Mortage, LP, et al., Respondents.

No. ED 110570

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION TWO.

FILED: October 18, 2022

For Appellant: Michael J. Sewell, 9378 Olive Blvd., Ste. 211, St. Louis, MO 63132.

For Respondent, Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.: Trenton K. Bond, Nathan J. Risch, 2244 S. Brentwood Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63144, Eric D. Martin, Hilary H. Sommer, 211 N. Broadway, Ste. 3600, St. Louis, MO 63102.

For Respondent, Envoy Mortg., LP: Christopher C. Miles, 4801 Main St., Ste. 1000, Kansas City, MO 64112, Theresa M. Mullineaux, 190 Carondelet Plaza, Ste. 600, St. Louis, MO 63105.

KURT S. ODENWALD, Judge

Introduction

Dustin M. Bray ("Bray") appeals from the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. ("Wells Fargo") on Bray's claims of fraud and outrage and on Wells Fargo's counterclaim seeking a declaration that its Deed of Trust establishes a superior interest in the subject property (the "Property"). Bray raises four points on appeal. Point One argues there exists a genuine dispute of material fact precluding summary judgment in that Bray submitted evidence showing Wells Fargo knew of Bray's claimed interest in the Property prior to acquiring the Deed of Trust. Point Two contends the circuit court erred in finding Bray was bound by a prior adjudication concerning the Property to which he was not a party. Point Three asserts the circuit court erred in dismissing Envoy Mortgage, LP ("Envoy") from Bray's claim to quiet title in the Property because Envoy did not seek an order of dismissal. Point Four maintains the circuit court erred in dismissing Envoy because the circuit court lacked authority to dismiss Envoy over Bray's objection.

Because Bray did not submit competent evidence demonstrating a genuine dispute of material fact precluding summary judgment on Wells Fargo's counterclaim, we deny Point One. Because Point One concludes the record entitled Wells Fargo to summary judgment independent of whether Bray was bound by a prior adjudication through privity with another party, we deny Point Two. Because Envoy's disclaimer of any interest in the Property rendered Bray's quiet-title claim against Envoy moot, the circuit court did not err in dismissing the claim, and we deny Points Three and Four. We affirm the judgment of the circuit court.

Factual and Procedural History

This appeal stems from multi-party, multi-property litigation originating in 2010. In this action, the circuit court consolidated various pending cases involving overlapping plaintiffs, defendants, and properties. In their Third Amended Petition, Bray and other plaintiffs brought fifteen claims against multiple defendants, alleging damages arising out of fraudulent real estate transactions occurring in 2008 in which Amanda and Ryan Sullivan (the "Sullivans") and their incorporated entity, Banccommercial, LLC ("Banccommercial"), purportedly assigned their rights to purchase the Property to Bray's stepmother and co-plaintiff, Kimberly J. Sexton in the name of her trust. The present appeal concerns only the Property and the interests therein of Bray, Wells Fargo, and Envoy.

Relevant to this appeal, Bray alleged claims for unjust enrichment ("Count VII–Unjust Enrichment"), a declaratory judgment to quiet title ("Count VIII–Quiet Title"), negligence ("Count XI–Negligence"), fraud ("Count XIV–Fraud"), and outrage ("Count XV–Outrage") against Wells Fargo with respect to the Property. Bray also brought claims of Unjust Enrichment and Quiet Title against Envoy in Counts VII and VIII. In response, Wells Fargo raised affirmative defenses and seven counterclaims, including a claim seeking a declaratory judgment as to the rights, titles, and interests of the parties as to the Property ("Counterclaim"). Wells Fargo alleged its Note and Deed of Trust established a valid and enforceable first priority lien showing its superior interest in the Property.

Wells Fargo moved for partial summary judgment on Count XIV–Fraud, Count XV–Outrage, and its Counterclaim. Bray and Envoy cross-moved for summary judgment on Count VIII–Quiet Title.

In June 2019, the circuit court entered an order granting partial dismissal of various counts and parties from the Third Amended Petition. The circuit court dismissed Counts II, III, VI, VII–Unjust Enrichment, and VIII–Quiet Title of Bray's Third Amended Petition as to other defendants on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel ("2019 Dismissal Order"). Following Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss, the circuit court dismissed Count VII–Unjust Enrichment for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted in October 2020 and dismissed Counts V and XI–Negligence in December 2020 ("2020 Dismissal Orders"). Bray has not appealed from the dismissal orders.

During litigation, Envoy disclaimed all interest in the property, affirmatively alleging that it had no interest in the Property on behalf of itself, its subsidiaries, or its affiliates. Subsequently, the circuit court dismissed Count VII–Unjust Enrichment as to Envoy in April 2020. In his motion for summary judgment on Count VIII–Quiet Title, Bray alleged a superior interest in the Property to Envoy. Envoy responded that it was not a proper party to Bray's Count VIII–Quiet Title and was entitled to dismissal because it was rendered moot by Envoy's disclaimer of interest.

On October 27, 2021 the circuit court issued its order granting partial summary judgment to Wells Fargo on Count XIV–Fraud, Count XV–Outrage, and the Counterclaim, and dismissing Count VIII–Quiet Title as to Envoy. The circuit court certified the order as a final judgment (the "Judgment") for the purpose of appeal. In the Judgment, the circuit court first dismissed Count VIII–Quiet Title against Envoy, finding it uncontroverted that Envoy was not claiming any interest in the Property and therefore was not a proper party in an action to quiet title. The circuit court then reviewed the remaining claims between Bray and Wells Fargo. The circuit court ruled that Wells Fargo was entitled to summary judgment on Count XIV–Fraud and Count XV–Outrage because the claims failed as a matter of law. Bray does not challenge the grant of summary judgment for Wells Fargo on Counts XIV and XV in his appeal. Regarding the Counterclaim, the circuit court found in favor of Wells Fargo, holding Wells Fargo's Note and Deed of Trust established an interest in the Property superior to any ownership interest claimed by Bray. Bray now appeals.

Jurisdiction

Before considering the merits of an appeal, we have a duty to determine sua sponte whether we have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Wilson v. City of St. Louis, 600 S.W.3d 763, 765 (Mo. banc 2020) (citing First Nat'l Bank of Dieterich v. Pointe Royale Prop. Owners’ Ass'n, Inc., 515 S.W.3d 219, 221 (Mo. banc 2017) ). "An appeal only lies from a final judgment resolving all issues in the case." Eclipse Prop. Dev. LLC v. Ammari, 635 S.W.3d 205, 211 (Mo. App. E.D. 2021) (citing First Nat'l Bank, 515 S.W.3d at 221 ). "However, Rule 74.01(b)¹ authorizes a circuit court to enter judgment on fewer than all claims and certify that judgment as a ‘final judgment’ for purposes of appeal where there is no just reason for delay." Id. (citing First Nat'l Bank, 515 S.W.3d at 221–22 ).

For purposes of [S]ection 512.020(5),² a "final judgment" must satisfy two criteria: (1) "it must be a judgment (i.e., it must fully resolve at least one claim in a lawsuit and establish all the rights and liabilities of the parties with respect to that claim)"; and (2) "it must be ‘final,’ either because it disposes of all claims (or the last claim) in a lawsuit, or because it has been certified for immediate appeal pursuant to Rule 74.01(b)."

Cass Cnty. v. City of Lee's Summit, 638 S.W.3d 560, 565 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021) (quoting McConnell v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 606 S.W.3d 181, 187 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) ).

The circuit court certified the Judgment as final for purposes of appeal under Rule 74.01(b). The parties on appeal address the propriety of that certification. In determining whether certification was proper, we consider the substance and effect of the order and whether it "disposes of a ‘judicial unit’ of claims, meaning it: (a) disposes of all claims by or against at least one party, or (b) it disposes of one or more claims that are sufficiently distinct from the claims that remain pending in the circuit court." Id. (quoting McConnell, 606 S.W.3d at 187 (quoting Wilson, 600 S.W.3d at 771 )). Even if an interlocutory judgment resolves a distinct judicial unit and there is no just reason for delay, a circuit court should not exercise its discretion to certify the judgment for appeal "if resolution of the remaining claims by the circuit court could affect or even moot appellate review of the claims already resolved" or if the resolved and unresolved claims are so intertwined that "an appellate ruling on the partial judgment could affect the rights of someone who is not party to that judgment (and, therefore, not a party to the appeal) but who remains a party to the unresolved claims still pending in the circuit court." Wilson, 600 S.W.3d at 772 (internal citation omitted).

Here, the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo on Bray's Count XIV–Fraud and Count XV–Outrage as well as on Wells Fargo's Counterclaim for a declaratory judgment quieting title in the Property. Except for Count VIII–Quiet Title, all claims between Bray and Wells Fargo and concerning the Property were dismissed in the 2019 and 2020 Dismissal Orders or voluntarily dismissed by Wells Fargo in February 2022. To the extent that the circuit court may have mischaracterized Count VIII–Quiet Title as having been dismissed as to Wells Fargo in a prior order, the claim was implicitly resolved by the Judgment, which declared Wells Fargo had an interest in the Property superior...