State v. Brooks, 23724

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Citation: 40 S.W.3d 411
• Docket Number: No. 23724,23724
• 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
• Decision Date: 29 March 2001

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for an order directing the Bank to pay into the circuit clerk's office an amount equivalent to what Sandra Brooks had withdrawn from her accounts.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...