Sophia Chu, Respondent, v. William L. "Bryan" Nanna, Appellant.

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 16, 2025
• Docket: ED113078
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION THREE SOPHIA CHU, ) No. ED113078 ) Respondent, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Charles County ) v. ) Cause No. 2411-FC01135 ) WILLIAM L. “BRYAN” NANNA, ) Honorable Norman C. Steimel III ) Appellant. ) Filed: September 16, 2025

Introduction

Appellant William Nanna appeals the circuit court’s order denying Appellant’s motion to

dismiss Respondent Sophia Chu’s motion to register a foreign judgment. Appellant raises three

points on appeal challenging the validity of Respondent’s motion and personal jurisdiction.

Because any decision in this case would be unnecessary and would have no legal effect, we

dismiss.1

Factual and Procedural Background

On July 26, 2024, Respondent filed an unverified motion to register a foreign judgment

pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law un under Section 511.760 2 and

Rule 74.14. 3 Respondent’s motion sought to register a judgment entered by a Japanese court

1 Respondent’s motion for remand, which was ordered taken with the case, is denied. 2 All Section references are to the Missouri Revised Statutes (2024). 3 All Rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2024).

1 dissolving the marriage between her and Appellant. Respondent attached a verified copy of the

judgment to her motion. Respondent did not request a summons be issued to Appellant pursuant

to Section 511.760.4, nor was Appellant ever served with the petition. However, the clerk’s

office mailed a notice of the foreign judgment’s registration to Appellant’s address on July 31,

2024, pursuant to Rule 74.14. Respondent additionally filed a garnishment application on

Appellant’s bank account, which was incorrectly served on a bank in O’Fallon, Missouri, before

being served on the correct bank in O’Fallon, Illinois.

Appellant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the registration of the Japanese decree

as a foreign judgment and a motion to quash the garnishment. In his motion to dismiss,

Appellant argued that the Japanese divorce decree was not a “foreign judgment” as defined

under Section 511.760.1, that Respondent failed to file a properly verified petition under Section

511.760.3, and that he was not properly served pursuant to Section 511.760.4. On October 18,

2024, the circuit court denied Appellant’s motion to dismiss and motion to quash the

garnishment. Appellant subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal seeking review of the circuit

court’s denial of the motion to dismiss.

Discussion

Appellant raises three points on appeal. In his first point on appeal, Appellant argues that

the circuit court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the registration of the Japanese divorce

decree because the court lacked statutory authority under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign

Judgments Law to register the decree, in that it was a judgment of another country and therefore

not within the law’s definition of “foreign judgment.” In his second point on appeal, Appellant

asserts that the circuit court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because the court lacked

statutory authority in that Respondent failed to file a verified petition to register the Japanese

2 decree as a foreign judgment. Finally, in his third point on appeal, Appellant claims the circuit

court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over

him, in that he was never served with any process.

A threshold question in any appellate review of a controversy is the mootness of the

controversy. Broyles v. Dep't of Cmty. Health & Env't of St. Charles Cnty., 456 S.W.3d 517, 520

(Mo. App. E.D. 2015) (citing TCF, LLC v. City of St. Louis, 402 S.W.3d 176, 181 (Mo. App.

E.D. 2013)). A case is moot if a judgment rendered has no practical effect on an existent

controversy. Id. “The existence of an actual and vital controversy susceptible of some relief is

essential to appellate jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting State ex rel. Wilson v. Murray, 955 S.W.2d 811,

812–13 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997)). When something occurs that makes a decision on appeal

unnecessary or makes it impossible for the appellate court to grant effective relief, the appeal is

moot and generally should be dismissed. Id. (citing TCF, 402 S.W.3d at 181).

Appellant’s interlocutory appeal is mooted by this Court’s decision in Chu v. Nanna,

ED113487, reversing the circuit court’s judgment denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss.4

Accordingly, any decision in this case is unnecessary and would have no legal effect.

Conclusion

We dismiss the appeal as moot.

Renée D. Hardin-Tammons, P.J.

Angela T. Quigless, J., and Thomas C. Clark II J., concur.

4 We take judicial notice of our own records in appeal No. ED113487 concerning the subsequent appeal filed by Appellant in the underlying case following the circuit court’s entry of a final judgment. Abram v. TitleMax of Missouri, Inc., 684 S.W.3d 74, 86 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023) (“This Court may take judicial notice of records from other related proceedings involving the same parties upon the Court's own motion.”) (citing Ruff v. Bequette Constr., Inc., 669 S.W.3d 701, 707 n.3 (Mo. App. E.D. 2023)).