State v. Brooks

• Decision Date: 29 March 2001
• Docket Number: No. 23724,23724
• Citation: 40 S.W.3d 411
• Parties: (Mo.App. S.D. 2001) United States of America, Plaintiff, v. James E. Brooks, et al., Defendants, Matthew Bobich, Cross-Claim Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James E. Brooks and Sandra Brooks, Cross-Claim Defendants, Ozark Mountain Bank, Cross-Claim Defendant-Respondent. 0
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

40 S.W.3d 411 (Mo.App. S.D. 2001)

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. James E. Brooks, et al., Defendants, Matthew Bobich, Cross-Claim Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James E. Brooks and Sandra Brooks, Cross-Claim Defendants, Ozark Mountain Bank, Cross-Claim Defendant-Respondent.

No. 23724

Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District

03/29/2001

Appeal From: Circuit Court of Greene County, Hon. Henry W. Westbrooke, Jr.

Counsel for Appellant: Stuart H. King

Counsel for Respondent: Bryant T. Renfrow

Opinion Summary: None

Parrish, P.J., and Montgomery, J., concur.

Kenneth W. Shrum, Judge

Appellant sought to collect a judgment debt via a writ of garnishment against all accounts of James and Sandra Brooks ("Brooks") at Ozark Mountain Bank ("Bank"). After the writ was purportedly served on Bank, Sandra Brooks closed her two accounts at the Bank. Appellant then moved for an order directing the Bank to pay into the circuit clerk's office an amount equivalent to what Sandra Brooks had withdrawn from her accounts. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court entered judgment for the Bank. This appeal followed. We affirm.

In a court-tried garnishment action, our review is governed by Rule 84.13(d) and Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo.banc 1976). Cox v. Steck, 992 S.W.2d 221, 223-24[1] (Mo.App. 1999). Thus, we will affirm the judgment of the trial court unless there is no evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d at 32[1]. Where, as here, the trial court makes no findings of fact, we consider all fact issues to have been found in accordance with the result reached. Brown v. Mercantile Bank of Poplar Bluff, 820 S.W.2d 327, 334 (Mo.App. 1991). We are to sustain the judgment of the court if the result was correct on any tenable basis. Id.

The money judgment underlying this garnishment was initially entered by a federal district court in Alaska against James Brooks and in favor of Appellant. Later, an Alaska state court entered judgment against James and Sandra Brooks declaring that James had fraudulently conveyed certain property to Sandra. The Alaska state court adjudged, inter alia, Appellant could disregard the conveyance of the described assets to Sandra and "execute on or garnish James Brooks' . . . interest in such property and assets, or the proceeds thereof."

Appellant filed both Alaska judgments in Greene County, Missouri. He then had an execution issued in the case that contained the federal district court judgment and started this garnishment action against the Bank. Appellant did this in the apparent belief that part of the fraudulently transferred assets were in accounts there.

The sheriff's return recites service was accomplished "[b]y delivering a copy of the summons/writ to the garnishee[]" on January 29, 1999. At the time, a savings account at the Bank bearing Sandra Brooks' name and that of her son, Coy W. Brooks, had a balance of $99,974.26. Also, a checking account in those two names had a $1,920.37 balance.

On March 15, 1999, Appellant filed a "Motion For Pay In Order" against the Bank. On March 16, 1999, the Bank informed the court via letter correspondence that the savings account had been closed on February 3, 1999, and "[t]herefore, there are no longer any funds in that account in which to pay in to the court." The Bank also advised that the Sandra Brooks' checking account "no longer carries the balance mentioned in the pay-in order." Accordingly, the Bank sent an amount that was "less than the pay-in order describes."

Appellant filed an "Amended Motion For Pay In Order" on October 13, 1999. Appellant requested an order directing the Bank to "pay in" an amount equal to the balances in Sandra Brooks' two accounts at the time of the garnishment.

On October 25, 1999, Appellant filed in the Greene County circuit court two documents entitled "Satisfaction of Judgment." One such document concerned the money judgments previously entered against James Brooks in the Alaska federal district court. This satisfaction of judgment bore a "U.S. District Court" file stamp dated September 21, 1999. Sans caption and signature of Appellant's lawyer, the document reads:

"SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT"

"Final judgments were entered in the above captioned matter against James E. Brooks and in favor of [Appellant] on May 12, 1994, and on June 18, 1997. Pursuant to section 09.30.300 of the Alaska Statutes, notice is hereby given by [Appellant], that the judgments entered on May 12, 1994 and on June 18, 1997 has [sic] been fully satisfied.

"DATED, this 16 day of Sept. 1999."

The other satisfaction of judgment related to the "fraudulent conveyance" judgments and recited they had "been fully satisfied." The language in the body of the "fraudulent conveyance" satisfaction was identical to that quoted in the preceding paragraph, except the description of the released judgments differed. The state court file stamp on this document bore the date September 21, 1999.

At the trial of Appellant's "Amended Motion For Pay In Order," the Bank urged dismissal thereof, citing four reasons for its request. In part, Appellant argued for dismissal because the underlying judgments had been satisfied.¹ Essentially, the Bank claimed that when Appellant filed the satisfaction of judgment documents, he extinguished the judgment for all purposes and, therefore, nothing remained to support any part of the garnishment case against the Bank.

To counter the Bank's argument, Appellant pointed to a document entitled "Amended Satisfaction of Judgment." This document, which Appellant filed in the Greene County circuit court on the day of trial (March 9, 2000), purported to amend the previously-filed satisfaction of the underlying money judgment as follows:

"AMENDED SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT"

"COMES NOW [Appellant] . . . and for his amended satisfaction of judgment, states to the Court as follows:

"1. Final judgments were entered in the above captioned matter against James E. Brooks and in favor of [Appellant] on May 12, 1994 and on June 18, 1997. Pursuant to section 09.30.300 of the Alaska Statutes, notice is hereby given by [Appellant] that [Appellant] have [sic] entered into a release and settlement agreement, which agreement fully resolves this litigation as to defendant James E. Brooks.

"2. Notice is further given that said release and settlement agreement does [sic] not contemplate the release of any claims of [Appellant] against any third parties not a party to said release including, without limitation, Ozark Mountain Bank, Garnishee and that [Appellant's] claim against Ozark Mountain Bank under the garnishment laws of the State of Missouri shall not be affected by the release and settlement agreement and/or this Amended Satisfaction of Judgment."

Appellant argued to the trial court that because the September 1999 satisfactions were "filed pursuant" to a settlement in which he reserved the right to pursue his claim against the Bank, the satisfactions did not "release the Bank of its obligation to pay over the funds garnished."

Since the trial court denied Appellant's "Motion For Pay In Order" without explication, the following is an issue on appeal: What effect did the satisfaction documents have on Appellant's garnishment case, if any? Appellant's only attempts at addressing this question are found in Point III of his brief, as follows:

"The trial court erred in denying [Appellant's] Motion For Pay In Order . . . because the trial court's denial was against the weight of the evidence and/or was unsubstantiated by the evidence in that [Appellant] presented evidence that his Settlement and Release agreement with James E. Brooks and Sandra Brooks did not release or satisfy [Appellant's] rights as to the Bank and specifically preserved his claim against the Bank, and the Bank presented no contrary evidence."

Appellant's initial argument under this point advances the notion that "satisfaction of judgment" entries are governed by the same principles that govern "pleadings" in a civil case. Thus, he cites Evans v. Eno, 903 S.W.2d 258 (Mo.App. 1995), for the proposition that once an amended pleading is filed, the original pleading is abandoned and may not be considered for any purpose; that "[a]n abandoned pleading is no longer in the case unless put in evidence and, even then, is not conclusive as to the fact alleged, and does not constitute a judicial admission." With these principles stated, Appellant contends "the only Satisfaction of relevance to this Court is the Amended Satisfaction of Judgment, which specifically provides that [Appellant] reserves his claim against the Bank."

Appellant does not, however, cite a statute, rule, or case that authorizes an amended satisfaction of judgment or even discusses this as a procedural option. Appellant also leaves unsupported by authority his implicit argument that satisfaction of judgment documents must be governed and interpreted by principles that apply to pleadings. His failure to cite authority is not surprising, however, as we cannot find authoritative support for such arguments. We explain why this is so later in this opinion as we discuss garnishment actions and Missouri law regarding satisfaction of judgments.

In another disconnected and futile attempt to develop meaningful argument under Point III, Appellant writes:

"There is no controversy that the Satisfactions were filed pursuant to the Settlement and Release Agreement (Exhibit I). What the Bank must argue is that the settlement with . . . Brooks and the Amended Satisfaction of Judgment as to . . . Brooks also serves to release the Bank of its obligation to pay over the funds garnished.

. . . .

"The . . . same argument [was addressed] in Manar v. Park Lane Medical Center, 753 S.W.2d 310 (Mo. App. 1988), in which the plaintiff reached a settlement of her claims against her doctors in a medical malpractice case and...