The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern 1 District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2243

___________ Alfred E. Harre; Bernice E. Harre; * David Bening, * * Plaintiffs/Appellees, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Missouri. Arthur G. Muegler, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant/Appellant, * * Rita D. Glover; Donald V. Nangle, * * Movants/Appellants. *

___________ Submitted: July 30, 1997 Filed: August 20, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After David Bening and Alfred Harre were unable to collect separate judgments of $260,000 each against Arthur Muegler, they moved in the district court for a 1Although appellants' brief states that Glover died on November 30, 1996, the 2 notice of appeal was filed on May 8, 1997. -2- creditor's bill or equitable garnishment on Mueg ler's portion of a contingency fee owed him and Donald Nangle for legal work on behalf of Rita Glover. The district court granted the motion and ordered that Muegler's portion of the leg al fees be paid to Harre and Bening. Muegler, Nangle, and Glover appeal. We affirm. 2

In January 1996, appellees Harre and Bening obtained judgments agains t Muegle r on their claims of fraud and misrepresentation. The judgments were late r affirmed in Harre v. Muegler , 113 F.3d 909 (8th Cir. 1997), but appellees wer e meanwhile unable to collect on them and moved for a creditor's bill and equitabl e garnishment. Appelle es alleged that Muegler was concealing property and assets and ha d insufficient property to satisfy the judgments and that they had tried to collec t through various writs of

execution which were all returned unsatisfied. They asserted that Muegler and Nangle had been representing Glover in several case s which had been consolidated in which she sought to collect life insurance pro ceeds from policies on her late husband, that those li fe insurance proceeds had been interpleaded and were in the custody of the clerk of the district court, and that Muegler was scheduled to receiv e fees from the insurance proceeds for his representation of Glover.
The distri ct court held a preliminary hearing and entered a preliminary order in May 1996 enjoining the clerk of court from paying any of the interpleaded funds until further order. It also ordered Muegler, Glover, and Nangle to appear to respond to the allegations in the motion and indicated that the merits of the motion for a creditor's bill would be decided after they appeared and discovery was had. The final hearing on the motion was held in September 1996. Harre and Bening produced evidence that Muegler had admitted in his deposition taken in July of 1996 that he had wo rked on the Glover cases in the district court, had been the attorney of record in one of the cases, and had filed and signed over thirty pleadings. The-3-

testimony of Muegler and Nangle from a separate trial was also presented in which they described the typical manner in which they worked together and how they split fees. That testimony showed that Muegler customarily received between 50 and 75 percent of the contingency fee when he worked on a case with Nangle, even if he had not been
a pa rty to the contingency fee agreement, and that Muegler had already receive d payment for representation of Glover concerning the life insurance policies in a state court case. Muegler and Nangle did not produce any evidence to disp ute the allegations and di d not supply requested information concerning Muegler's assets and ability t o satisfy the judgments. They argued that there could be no equitable garnishmen t because there were no records detailing Muegler's work or payment received and that appellees had failed to follow procedural requirements.
Bef ore the district court ruled on the motion, Glover's counsel successfull y obtained from Judge Catherine Perry an order for def ault judgment and payment in one of the insur ance cases. That case had been transferred to Judge Perry in Septembe r 1996, and in spite of the earlier order of Judge Shaw not to disburse the interpleaded funds, the clerk paid out approximately $37,000 of the funds on January 31, 199 7 pursuant to Judge Perry's order of the previous day.

In March 1997, Judge Shaw granted a creditor's bill, vacating his preliminar y order, find ing that Muegler was entitled to 50% of the contingency fee for hi s representation of Glover, and ordering that any port ion of the interpleaded funds which represented fees Muegler was scheduled to receive should bepaid to Harre and Bening to satisfy their judgments. Muegl er, Nangle, and Glover appeal, arguing that the district court erred i n granting the creditor's bill to enforce the judgments. They argue that the district court did not have jurisdiction over the motion for a creditor's bill, they were not given proper notice, t he elements necessary to impose a creditor's bill were not established, th e district court orders violated their constitutional rights, and they should have been-4-

awarded attorney fees for defending against the motion. Harre and Be ning respond that the di strict court complied with the necessary jurisdictional and procedura l requirements for granting a creditor's bill and that the evidence in the record supports its order.

In the absence of a controlling federal statute, a district court "has the sam e aut hority to aid judgment creditors in supplementary proceedings as that which i s provi ded to state court under local law." H.H. Robertson Co. v. V.S. DiCarlo Gen' l Contractors, Inc. , 994 F.2d 476, 477 (8th Cir. 1993) (qu otations and citations omitted). A creditor 's bill is an appropriate remedy under Missouri law and enables a judgment cred itor to trace the value of goods and services to satisfy a judgment. Id. It "serves to fill the void created where the no rmal processes of law are found to be inadequate." Linder v. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. , 472 S.W.2d 412, 414 (Mo. 1971) (en banc).
A careful review of the record shows that the district court did not err in finding it had jurisdiction and granting the motion for a creditor's bill. Muegler, Nangle, and Glover received notice of the motion for a creditor's bill on the interpleaded insurance funds, an d they were given ample opportunity to respond to the allegations in th e motionand to present evidence on whether the creditor's bill should be granted. See id. at 478. There w ere valid judgments against Muegler, and he had repeatedly failed to produ ce requested information concerning the location and amount of his assets

. Appellees had been unable to col lect their judgments. There was substantial evidence to support the finding that Muegler was entitled to receive fees for his representation of Glover o ut of any life insurance proceeds she collected and that a creditor's bil l should be granted on those funds to satisfy the outstandin g judgments against him. See Shockley v. Harry Sander Realty Co. , 771 S.W.2d 922, 925 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).Muegler has also raised several issues concerning the granting of the prel iminary 3 order in aid of execution, but since that order has been vacated and the underlyin g cl aim has been decided on the merits, those issues are moot. See Abdalla v. INS , 43 F.3d 1397, 1398-99 (10t

h Cir. 1994). Similarly, Muegler's motion to strike appellees' brief and supplementary appendix need not be addressed since the unsatisfied writs of execution about which he complains have not been considered on this appeal. -5- Muegle r has not made a showing on his constitutional claims, and since th e distri ctcourt did not err in granting the creditor's bill appellants' request for attorne y fees is moot. The order of the district court is therefore affirmed.

3 A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.