Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Second Division
from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County Honorable Michael
B. SULLIVAN, P.J.
Properties, LLC (Appellant) appeals from the trial
court's summary judgment entered in favor of Gary L. Hall
(Hall), Bentley Investments of Nevada, LLC (Bentley), and
Penfield's Business Centers, LLC. (Penfield's)
(collectively Respondents). We dismiss for lack of a final,
and Procedural Background
petition alleges it is a judgment creditor of Deborah B.
Purvis (Purvis) in that on January 20, 2011, it obtained a
judgment in the circuit court of St. Louis County against her
in the amount of $1, 501, 041, which remains unsatisfied.
Appellant further alleges claims of fraudulent transfer and
conspiracy to make fraudulent transfer against Purvis and six
other defendants, to-wit: Respondents Hall, Bentley, and
Penfield's; and Defendants NIS Construction Services, LLC
(NIS), Elizabeth E. Nolan (Nolan); and Jennings Station
Crossing, LLC (Jennings Station).
(except for Hall, who joined in the motion orally) and
Defendant Jennings Station filed a motion for summary
judgment which, after briefing, response, and argument, was
granted by the circuit court on September 10, 2015, as
Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defts Jennings Station
Crossings, LLC, Bentley Investments of Nevada LLC &
[Penfield's] Business Centers LLC called, heard &
granted. Judgment entered in their favor and against
plaintiff. Deft Hall joined in this Motion for Summary
Judgment. Judgment granted to Hall & against plaintiff.
Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defts NIS Const.
Services & Nolan called, heard & taken under
submission. These parties & plaintiff granted until
September 17, 2015 to submit additional proposed findings of
fact & suggested order.
September 15, 2015, Appellant filed a Motion to Amend
Judgment for Purposes of Immediate Appeal. In the motion,
Appellant stated: "COMES NOW PLAINTIFF and pursuant to
Rule 74.01(b),  moves this Court amend its Order and
Judgment of September 10, 2015 so as to reflect a final
judgment which Plaintiff may immediately appeal."
Appellant attached a proposed Amended Judgment which
contained, among other things, the language "Pursuant to
Rule 74.01(b), the Court hereby determines that there exists
no just reason for delay in the entry of this Judgment."
On September 28, 2015, the circuit court denied the Motion
for Summary Judgment filed by NIS and Nolan that it had taken
under submission in its September 10, 2015 Order and
October 19, 2015, in response to Appellant's Motion to
Amend Judgment for Purposes of Immediate Appeal filed on
September 15, the circuit court entered a judgment as
Pltf's Motion to Amend Judgment called, heard &
granted. Order granting Summary Judgment to Defendant Hall
amended to be a Judgment ...