Mo. Land Dev. I, LLC. v. Raleigh Dev., LLC.

• Citation: 407 S.W.3d 676
• Decision Date: 01 October 2013
• Docket Number: No. ED 99258.,ED 99258.
• Parties: MISSOURI LAND DEVELOPMENT I, LLC., Appellant, v. RALEIGH DEVELOPMENT, LLC., et al., Respondents.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

407 S.W.3d 676

MISSOURI LAND DEVELOPMENT I, LLC., Appellant,
v.
RALEIGH DEVELOPMENT, LLC., et al., Respondents.

No. ED 99258.

Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division Three.

June 28, 2013.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 31, 2013.
Application for Transfer Denied Oct. 1, 2013.

[407 S.W.3d 680]

Thomas G. Berndsen, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.

William L. Sauerwein, Stewart A. Schneider, Trenton K. Boyd, Joseph C. Blanner, St. Louis, MO, Shawn T. Briner, Jennifer A. Briner, Chesterfield, MO, for Respondents.

ROY L. RICHTER, Judge.

Missouri Land Development I, LLC (“Appellant”) appeals from the trial court's judgment, entered by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, quashing and permanently enjoining a writ of execution for the sheriff's sale of real property in satisfaction of a default civil money judgment entered on September 27, 2010, against Raleigh Properties, Inc. and Raleigh Development, LLC to enforce six mechanic's lien claims. We affirm.

I. Background

The facts of this case are dense, and thus, a brief synopsis facilitates our legal analysis. The story begins with the purchase of empty ground in Eureka, St. Louis County, Missouri, in July 2004, by Raleigh Properties, Inc. (“Raleigh Properties”), on which a residential subdivision was planned. In December 2004, Raleigh Properties executed a quitclaim deed conveying the entire property to Raleigh Development, LLC (“Raleigh Development”). However, in January 2005, Raleigh Properties executed a subdivision plat creating Hillington Estates, consisting of 26 residential lots and common ground. The plat was recorded on January 21, 2005. On April 8, 2005, the previously executed quitclaim deed to Raleigh Development was recorded.

On October 20, 2005, Raleigh Properties recorded a boundary adjustment plat for Lot 16. Both plats were executed and recorded by Raleigh Properties, even though it had already conveyed the subdivision property to Raleigh Development. In 2006 and 2007, Raleigh Properties executed and recorded, as the grantor, general warranty deeds to convey Lots 3, 10, 16, 23, and 26 and the common ground in Hillington Estates subdivision to William and Jane Steck, David and Barbara Ploch, James and Renee Floyd, Anthony and Ann Amick, Dennis and Lisa Flick, and Hilltop Villages Community Association, Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”).

In April 2008, River City Drywall Co., Inc. filed suit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County seeking to enforce its mechanic's liens against various lots of the Hillington Estates subdivision. In June 2008, Missouri Land Development I, LLC (“Appellant”), a contractor hired by Raleigh Properties, Inc. and Raleigh Development, LLC (collectively, the “Raleigh Defendants”) to do the grading, excavating, street and sewer work for the subdivision, intervened in the mechanic's lien lawsuit based on nonpayment for its work. In addition to Appellant's mechanic's lien claim against the Hillington Estates subdivision, the petition included a count for quantum meruit against the Hillington Estates subdivision and breach of contract against the Raleigh Defendants.

On May 14, 2010, the trial court entered a judgment denying the mechanic's lien claims of River City Drywall, Inc., and

[407 S.W.3d 681]

another contractor, Ambassador Floor Co. on the basis that they failed to give the statutory ten-day mechanic's lien notice to Raleigh Development, which was the legal owner of the subdivision property. This judgment later was reversed on appeal in River City Drywall, Inc. v. Raleigh Properties, Inc., 341 S.W.3d 716 (Mo.App. E.D.2011).

Additionally, on March 23, 2010, the trial court entered judgment against Appellant and in favor of the Respondents, finding Appellant's mechanic's lien invalid because it did not comply with Missouri's mechanic's lien statutes. The trial court held that Appellant's mechanic's lien was not a valid and enforceable lien, Appellant was not entitled to a lien for its services on the Hillington Estates property, and the lien and all invoices and amounts therein were fully and forever released as a lien upon the property described in Appellant's petition, including the specific lots in which Respondents held or claimed an interest. Included in its findings of fact, the trial court found the following facts were not in dispute:

• Respondents are the owners or have an interest in the land subject to Appellant's mechanic's lien claims;

• Raleigh Development and Raleigh Properties are the former owners of all the lots that make up the property prior to conveying the lots to Respondents and others;

• Appellant and Raleigh Properties entered into a contract to perform excavation and grading work for the Hillington Estates project and a second contract for the installation of sewers, detention work and blasting for basements; and

• Appellant's lien claim relates to additional grading, excavation and sewer work not contemplated by the two contracts performed by Appellant.

In April 2010, Appellant requested the trial court reconsider and reverse summary judgment, or alternatively, to certify the March 23, 2010 judgment as final and appealable. The trial court granted the motion to certify the judgment for appeal. Appellant also dismissed with prejudice its claims for quantum meruit (count III) against Raleigh Development and the Hillington Estates subdivision homeowners and breach of contract (count IV) against Raleigh Properties and Raleigh Development. Appellant appealed from the judgment denying the mechanic's lien, and this Court affirmed the trial court's judgment in Missouri Land Development I, LLC v. Raleigh Properties, Inc., 347 S.W.3d 172 (Mo.App. E.D.2011), pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).¹ In the meantime, however, while that appeal was pending, Appellant secured a default money judgment on September 27, 2010, against Raleigh Properties and Raleigh Development on Count II of its petition for mechanic's lien (“Money Judgment”). The Money Judgment stated that it was retroactive to, and effective as of March 23, 2010; and it was “separate from, and does not alter, amend or affect, the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment as to [Appellant] that the Court entered on March 23, 2010.”

Thereafter, on July 30, 2012, Appellant caused a writ of execution to be issued by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County against Raleigh Development, directing a sheriff's sale of Lots 3, 10, 16, 23, and 26 and the common ground in the Hillington Estates subdivision in satisfaction of the Money Judgment entered against Raleigh

[407 S.W.3d 682]

Development. The sale was scheduled for September 6, 2012, and the legal and record owner of all the properties was Raleigh Development. On August 21, Appellant recorded a Notice of Lis Pendens with respect to this execution action, wherein the action was designed to affect the real estate of which the following parties have a claim or interest or is the owner of record: Raleigh Development, William P. Steck, Jane Christensen–Steck, David W. Ploch, Barbara A. Ploch, James M. Floyd, Renee C. Floyd, Anthony A. Amick, Ann M. Amick, Dennis Flick, Lisa Flick, and Hilltop Village Community Association.

Respondents intervened in this action contending that they were the true owners of the subject properties pursuant to the general warranty deeds, which they had received from Raleigh Properties in 2006 and 2007. Respondents filed two related but separate actions in the trial court, including applications for an immediate temporary restraining order to stop the pending sheriff's sale, and corresponding requests for preliminary and permanent injunctions. They also filed separate petitions under Section 513.360, RSMo (2011)², and Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 76.25 to permanently quash the writ of execution and to enjoin Appellant from taking any future actions to execute against the properties. Respondents alleged they were the true owners of the subject properties because their original warranty deeds contained clerical errors and because the trial court had already ruled in its prior mechanic's lien judgments that Raleigh Development and Raleigh Properties were “former” owners of the subject properties and alter egos of each other. On August 29, 2012, the trial court sustained Respondents' requests and entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the sheriff's sale.

Then, Respondents each recorded in the public records a “correction” deed to fix the clerical errors in their original warranty deeds by naming Raleigh Development as a new grantor in place of Raleigh Properties. Raleigh Development executed each of the deeds as the new grantor, and Respondents and Raleigh Properties also executed the deeds in confirmation of the same. Respondents then amended their pleadings to contend that these correction deeds vested ownership of the subject properties in them. They were all executed and recorded by the morning of September 6, 2012, prior to the scheduled sheriff's sale.

The final trial on the merits of Respondents' petitions to permanently quash the writ of execution was scheduled for October 2, 2012. Prior to trial, Appellant served subpoenas on each Respondent, scheduling their oral depositions and compelling production of the real estate and business records relating to their claims. Appellant also served each Respondent with a separate request under Rule 58.01, seeking production of the same of records. Appellant additionally served subpoenas on each Respondent compelling their appearances to testify at trial on October 2 and for the production of the same records. The trial court quashed all of this discovery.

At trial, Respondents entered evidence of the correction deeds as well as the judgments and appellate decisions entered in the two prior mechanic's liens cases describing Respondents as owners or having interest in the property and the Raleigh Defendants as the former owners of

[407 S.W.3d 683]

the property. On October 16, 2012,...