DIVISION TWO

BANK OF WASHINGTON

, et al., ) ED1 0 7 514 ) Appellant s , ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of

v. ) the City of St. Loui s ) 1 822

- CC10860 LCRA HOLDINGS CORPORATION

, ) ) Honorable D avid L. Dowd Respondent

. ) ) Filed: September 24, 2019

OPINION

Bank of Washington (“ the Bank”) appeals the trial court ’ s judgment quieting title to

property acquired for construction and relocation of the National Geospatial

- Intelligence Agency

(“NGA”) in favor of LCRA Holding Corporation (“LCRAH”) . We dismiss the appeal as moot.

BACKGROUND

In 2014

, a 97

- acre portion of property in North St. Louis City was identified as one of the

potential sites for the relocation of the National Geo

- Spatial Intelligence Agency facility

.
Thereafter, th e City of St. Louis (“the City”) sought to acquire property within the 97 acres which

included mul tiple separate parcels of property (“the Property”) . LCRAH was formed to assume

ownership of the property. Several of the parcels included in the 97 acres were owned by Northside

Regeneration, LLC (“Northside)

, upon which the Bank h el d multiple liens.2

In 2016, LCRAH, t he Bank, and Northside entered into several agreements relating to the

transfer of Northside’s property, including a purchase and sale agreement under which the Bank,

as the lender on the Northside property, agreed to release its liens for c onsideration . However, in

July 2018, the Bank filed suit in Franklin County Circuit Court , seeking rescission of the purchase

and sale agreement under which it released its liens and the restoration of its deeds of trust against

the Property. Shortly the reafter, LCRAH filed its action to quiet title in the Property against the

Bank and Northside. 1 The court granted judgment in favor of LCRAH, quieting title to the Property

in its favor. This appeal follows.

DISCUSSION

The Bank asserts ten substantive points on appeal challenging the trial court’s judgment

quieting title to the P roperty in favor of LCRAH. However, we do not consider the Bank’s

substantive points because the appeal is moot. 2

Analysis

In response to the Bank ’s substantive points, LCRAH raises the threshold q uestion of

mootness . “[A] case is moot if a judgment rendered has no practical effect upon an existent

controversy.” TCF, LLC v. City of St. Louis , 402 S.W.3d 176, 181 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) . If an

event occurs that makes a decision on appeal unnecessary or even impossible for our court to grant

relief, the appeal is moot and should be dismissed. Id

.

T he Bank effectively seeks to have its liens reinstated on the specific parcels of prope rty

formerly owne d by Northside. However, it is clear from the record before us this relief cannot be

1 While these actions were pending, the City filed a condemnation action in September 2018. The Property was condemned in favor of the City , and the Bank has appealed the condemnation judgment to this court.

2 Several of the Bank’s points on appeal rais e issues concerning the justiciability of the underlying quiet title action. The Bank claims the trial court should have dismissed the action for multiple reasons. However, the substantive issue regarding whether the court should have granted the Bank’s motion to dismiss LCRAH’s quiet title action was a justiciable controversy; therefore, while the appeal is moot, the underlying cause of action was not.3

granted to the Bank. Otis Williams, the Executive Director of the St. Louis Development

Corporation, which is an economic development arm of the City of St. Louis, testi fied at the bench

trial on October 15, 2018. Williams state d that while the 97 acres of NGA property originally

consisted of 551 separate parcels of property, including Northside’s 331 parcels, the property ha s

been totally cleared. It is now a single site and the individual parcels no longer exist

. In addition, the property has been transferred to the United States g overnment via a land

development remediation transfer agreement

. Even if a lien could somehow be restored on

property that no longer ex ists as separate parcels, it could not be enforced against the United States

without the government’s consent. See e.g. Berger Levee Dist., Franklin County v. U.S. , 7 S.W.3d

15, 17 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999).

As a result, the relief the Bank seeks cannot be g ranted even if we were to grant the Bank’s

points on appeal and reverse the judgment of the trial court quieting title in favor of LCRAH on

the Property. The refore, the appeal is dismissed as moot.

CONCLUSION

As a result of the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed as moot.

___________________________________ Lisa P. Page, Judge

Philip M. Hess, P. J. and Kurt S. Odenwald, J., concur.