Topping Estates, Carey Mullen, Eric Danker, and Carter Oldfield v. The Spalitto Living Trust, Peter J. Spalitto, and Susan V. Spalitto

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 28, 2023
• Docket: ED111623
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO

TOPPING ESTATES, CAREY MULLEN, ) No. ED111623 ERIC DANKER, AND CARTER OLDFIELD, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court Appellants, ) of St. Louis County ) vs. ) Honorable Matthew H. Hearne ) THE SPALITTO LIVING TRUST, PETER J. ) SPALITTO, AND SUSAN V. SPALITTO, ) ) Respondents. ) FILED: November 28, 2023

Introduction

Topping Estates, a subdivision association, through and with its alleged trustees, Carey

Mullen, Eric Danker, and Carter Oldfield, (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from the circuit

court’s amended order and judgment granting partial summary judgment in favor of the Spalitto

Living Trust, Peter J. Spalitto, and Susan V. Spalitto (collectively “the Spalittos”) and denying

partial summary judgment to Appellants. The order found that Topping Estates’ indentures were

expired, void, or invalid, and thus had no restricting effect on the Spalittos, who owned a lot in

Topping Estates. Although the Spalittos’ amended counterclaims remained pending, the circuit

court declared there was no just reason for delaying an appeal of the order, and it certified the therefore do not constitute a distinct judicial unit. See id. at 223 (quoting Gibson, 952 S.W.2d at

24-25).

Count III of the Amended Counterclaims, which also remains pending, alleges abuse of

process resulting from Appellants' attempt to enforce void or invalid restrictions upon the

Spalittos for an improper purpose. Success on this claim will likewise require the Spalittos to

prove that the Indentures sought to be enforced by the alleged trustees were neither valid nor

enforcea ble. See Energy Mkt. 709, LLC, 614 S.W.3d at 649 (finding a circuit court did not

dispose of a distinct judicial unit where the order declared an ordinance was invalid and void but

failed to resolve whether attempts to enforce that ordinance violated other constitutional rights).

We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that none of the counterclaims currently

pending in the circuit court relate to the validity of the Indentures. Rather, the record clearly

supports a finding that the pending claims embodied within the Spalittos' Amended

Counterclaims, like the claims resolved by the March 2023 Judgment, depend on whether the

amendments to the Indentures were properly enacted and thus enforcea ble. See McClain v.

Landmark Equity Grp., LLC, 584 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (holding no distinct

judicial unit was formed where the resolved claim involved the propriety of a foreclosure sale of

a property and the pending claims sought remedies related to the sale).

In summary, the validity of the Indentures, the direct interplay between those restrictions

and the Lot, and the various methods for enforcing the Indentures are operative facts that run

throughout both the March 2023 Judgment and the counterclaims that remain pending in the

circuit court. See Wilson, 600 S.W.3d at 773. Because the pending Amended Counterclaims

arise out of the same operative facts as those claims resolved in the March 2023 Judgment, we