United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-3767

___________________________

Enterprise Financial Group, Inc.,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant,

v.

Richard Podhorn; GR3 Construction, LLC; Capital Constructors Development,

LLC; SLC Group, LLC; CLS Group, LLC; LCS Group, LLC; Cornerstone

Investors, LLC; CapDev, LLC; Wilmer Farms, LLC; Highland Management

Group, LLC; Maundeigh-Blu, LP; Maundeigh-Blu Management Company, Inc.;

Richard J. Podhorn Revocable Trust U/T/A Dated May 18, 2006; Locomotive

Investments, LP; HSWB, LLC; HS157, LLC; PFWB, LLC; WB1, LLC; 6ND,

LLC; 6NWB, LLC; Missouri Equity Solutions, LLC; MO Housing &

Re-Development, LLC; Contract Holdings, Inc.; Simpson Living Trust;

Automotive Professional Resources, LLC; JCL Realty, LLC; James Capital

Investments, LP; 4S Development, LLC; Wentzville Cinema Company, LLC,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees.

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

Submitted: January 15, 2019

Filed: July 16, 2019

[Published]

____________

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, COLLOTON and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.

____________
PER CURIAM.

Enterprise Financial Group, Inc. sued CapDev, LLC and several other

defendants under the Missouri Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. Enterprise then

filed a lis pendens—a notice that any interests in property acquired during litigation

are subject to the outcome—against one of CapDev’s properties. The district court

1

granted CapDev’s motion to cancel the lis pendens, and Enterprise appeals.

The amended complaint alleges that an entity indebted to Enterprise made

fraudulent transferstoCapDev and the other defendants. As relevant here, Enterprise

claims that CapDev received a fraudulent $1.9 million loan and used this loan to

purchase and develop “23.82 acres at the corner of State Highway Z and Interstate 70

commonly known as Wentzville Bluffs.” Enterprise separately filed a lis pendens as

to “Lot 2 of WENTZ BLUFFS #1 & T092200007 SPLIT/MAP P, according to the

plat thereof recorded in Plat Book Page(s) of the St. Charles County Records (Hwy

Z, Wentzville, MO 63385).” The district court granted CapDev’s motion to cancel

this lis pendens, concluding that it was invalid under Missouri law. We review

cancellation of a lis pendensfor abuse of discretion. S.B. McLaughlin &Co. v. Tudor

Oaks Condo. Project, 877 F.2d 707, 708 (8th Cir. 1989).

“For a lis pendens to have prospective effect, the judgment contemplated must

adjudicate an equitable right, claim or lien, affecting or designed to affect [the] real

estate in question.” Space Planners Architects, Inc. v. Frontier Town-Mo., Inc., 107

S.W.3d 398, 407 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003) (alteration in original) (internal quotation

marks omitted); see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 527.260. As the district court noted,

Enterprise’s prayer does not specifically request equitable relief, and instead seeks

“actual and exemplary damages” and “any other relief the court deems appropriate.”

The Honorable Henry Edward Autrey, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Missouri.

-2-
Enterprise urges usto focus on paragraph 133 of its amended complaint, which

precedes the prayer for relief and generically requests equitable remedies such as

attachment of the defendants’ assets and appointment of a receiver. This paragraph,

however, does not identify any specific property, let alone the particular real estate

at issue, as to which equitable relief is sought. The only reference to CapDev’s

property comesseveral paragraphs earlier, when Enterprise mentions the “23.82 acres

at the corner of State Highway Z and Interstate 70 commonly known as Wentzville

Bluffs.” This imprecise description does not specify whether the 23.82 acres

encompass the “Lot 2” mentioned in the lis pendens, and does not connect the

property to any particular request for equitable relief. In light of these shortcomings

in Enterprise’s amended complaint, the district court acted within its discretion in

canceling the lis pendens.

The order of the district court is affirmed.

______________________________

-3-