Medlin v. RLC, Inc., No. SD 33630 & SD 33636 Consolidated

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Writing for the Court: DANIEL E. SCOTT, P.J.—OPINION AUTHOR
• Citation: 486 S.W.3d 339
• Parties: Roy Medlin, Appellant, v. RLC, Inc., Bank of America, and Commerce Bank, Respondents.
• Docket Number: No. SD 33630 & SD 33636 Consolidated
• Decision Date: 21 September 2015

486 S.W.3d 339

Roy Medlin, Appellant,
v.
RLC, Inc., Bank of America, and Commerce Bank, Respondents.

No. SD 33630 & SD 33636 Consolidated

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One .

FILED: September 21, 2015

Appellant's attorney: Steven E. Marsh, Springfield.

Respondent Bank of America's attorney: Thomas E. Nanney, Kansas City.

Respondent Commerce Bank's attorneys: Thomas J. O'Neal, Jennifer R. Growcock, & Emma R. Schuering, Springfield.

DANIEL E. SCOTT, P.J.—OPINION AUTHOR

This is Medlin's fourth appeal involving his blanket mechanic's lien filed 16 years ago against a 31–lot subdivision. See Medlin v. RLC, Inc. , 194 S.W.3d 926 (Mo.App.2006) (“Medlin I ”); then Medlin v. RLC, Inc. , 423 S.W.3d 276 (Mo.App.2014) (“Medlin II ”); followed by Medlin v. RLC, Inc. , 467 S.W.3d 865 (Mo.App.2015) (“Medlin III ”), which affirmed the amount, satisfaction, full release, and discharge of Medlin's blanket lien securing a 2008 final judgment. 2015 WL 2169279 at *1, *4.¹

Medlin now challenges the recent setting aside, upon motion by respondent banks (“Banks”), of what he calls a “separate” 2004 default judgment and “the particular liens of the 2004 judgment” upon which Medlin had begun to make demand. While the trial court did not specify why it granted the Banks' motion, this court “will affirm if the holding is correct on any tenable basis.” Johnson v. Otey, 299 S.W.3d 308, 310 (Mo.App.2009). We affirm, among other reasons, because Medlin has no judgment or mechanic's liens in this case separate from those addressed in Medlin III.

Background²

In 1999, RLC subcontracted Medlin to work on the subdivision, then refused Medlin's $36,397 payment request.

In 2000, Medlin filed a blanket mechanic's lien statement for $36,397 against the subdivision, followed by a petition to enforce it.

In 2003, Medlin's Fourth Amended Petition joined the Banks and other parties, seeking in Count I a declaration that Medlin's mechanic's lien was “prior, superior and paramount” to liens of the Banks and others. The Banks were served but did not respond. Later, Medlin's Fifth Amended Petition added more Count I defendants. The Banks were not served or otherwise notified of this petition.

In 2004, Medlin took default judgment on Count I of its Fifth Amended Petition against 20 defendants, including the Banks. As to these defendants and their respective interests in at least 13 specified subdivision lots, Medlin's mechanic's lien was granted priority in the total sum of $69,154 ($36,397 principal plus accrued interest) per allegations of Medlin's Fifth Amended Petition. On appeal, Medlin acknowledges this default judgment was interlocutory and subject to change until the final judgment was entered in 2008.³

486 S.W.3d 341

In 2006, the trial court dismissed all Count I defendants but RLC, finding they “should not be parties to Count I ... and are hereby dismissed from said Count I, leaving RLC, Inc. as the only defendant remaining on said count,” but that if Medlin proved his lien claim at trial, “the lien will continue to attach to the subject property regardless of who presently has an interest in such property.”

In 2008,...