Bening, et al v. Concepts Communicati, et al

Filing 366

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the garnishees' motion to dissolve, modify, terminate, or otherwise determine or conclude this Courts preliminary order in aid of execution and of creditors bill and equitable garnishment and related proceedings is DENIED without prejudice. [Doc. 358] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the garnishees' motion for leave to deposit certified copies of deeds into registry of the Court is DENIED. [Doc. 357] Signed by District Judge Charles A. Shaw on 2/26/2014. (NCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DAVID J. BENING, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
ARTHUR G. MUEGLER, JR., et al.,
)
)
Defendants,
)
)
FREDA BROCKMAN, DONALD NANGLE, )
JEANNE NANGLE, and W. DAVID
)
BLACKWELL,
)
)
Garnishees.
)

No. 4:90-CV-1798 CAS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This closed case is before the Court on garnishees Donald Nangle and Jeanne Nangle’s
motion to dissolve, modify, terminate, or otherwise determine or conclude this Court’s preliminary
order in aid of execution and of creditors bill and equitable garnishment and related proceedings.
Plaintiffs David J. Bening, Alfred W. Harre (now deceased and survived by his wife, Bernice), and
Bernice Harre (“plaintiffs”) have filed an “answer” to the motion. Plaintiffs’ answer gives some
additional background as to the lengthy history of this matter, but does not oppose the motion. The
answer merely states whether plaintiffs admit or deny the allegations in garnishees’ motion. For the
following reasons, the Court will deny without prejudice garnishees’ motion.
Background
This action dates back to 1990, and the current motion concerns a preliminary order in aid
of execution and of creditors bill and equitable garnishment, which was issued on February 23,
1999. As background, on September 21, 1990, plaintiffs Bening and Harre sued defendant Arthur

G. Muegler, Jr. (now deceased) for fraud, among other things. On January 23, 1996, a jury awarded
plaintiffs Bening and Harre separate judgments against defendant Muegler, each in the sum of
$260,000.00. These judgments remained unsatisfied for several years.
On February 23, 1999, the Court found that defendant Muegler had conveyed various
properties and entered into various sham transactions in an intentional effort to frustrate plaintiffs’
efforts to collect their judgments. On that same date, the Court issued the preliminary order in aid
of execution and of creditors bill and equitable garnishment. The order stated that defendant
Muegler was the attorney of record representing Donald Nangle in a suit Mr. Nangle had brought
in state court against Freda Brockman, captioned Nangle v. Brockman. Mr. Nangle had received
a judgment in that case of $117,598.08, and the Court found that defendant Muegler was to receive
a contingency fee from the proceeds of this judgment. The Court found that plaintiffs Bening and
Harre were entitled to “levy, attach and seize” all of defendant Muegler’s rights to the judgment in
the Nangle v. Brockman lawsuit. See Doc. 313. These proceeds had been purportedly assigned to
Nangle’s wife, Jeanne Nangle, “in a transparent and disingenuous attempt to circumvent plaintiffs’
[Bening and Harre’s] collection of the judgement.” Id. at 3.
As it happened, garnishees Donald and Jeanne Nangle had seized certain real property owned
by their judgment debtor Freda Brockman, which was to be sold at an impending public auction.
The proceeds of this auction were to be given to the Nangles in execution of Mr. Nangle’s judgment
against Ms. Brockman. Plaintiffs Bening and Harre moved this Court, intra alia, for an injunction
to prohibit the Nangles and Mr. Mueller from receiving any proceeds from the sale. See Doc. 312.
The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion and preliminarily enjoined and prohibited Ms.
Brockman from paying any money to the Nangles or to Mr. Muegler in satisfaction of the judgment

-2-

in Nangle v. Brockman. Instead, any and all proceeds of the sale of the real property were to be paid
into the Registry of this Court, presumably to be turned over to plaintiffs Harre and Bening. As of
January 18, 2006, however, plaintiffs stated the judgment remained entirely unsatisfied.
This case has remained closed and dormant since an Order on Revival of Judgment issued
April 27, 2006. See Doc. 354.
Discussion
On July 22, 2013, garnishee Jeanne Nangle filed with the Court a motion for leave to deposit
certified copies of deeds into the Registry of this Court, and garnishees Donald and Jeanne Nangle
filed contemporaneously a motion to dissolve, modify, terminate, or otherwise determine or
conclude this Court’s preliminary order in aid of execution and of creditors bill and equitable
garnishment and related proceedings. As stated in garnishees’ motion, in an effort to collect on the
state court judgment held by Jeanne Nangle against Freda Brockman in Nangle v. Brockman, the
Sheriff of St. Louis County has levied upon and sold at execution sale to Jeanne Nangle several
properties owned by Ms. Brockman located in Fenton, Missouri. These properties are known by
their street addresses: 731 Larkin Williams Road, 817 Larkin Williams Road, 41 Gravois, 49
Gravois, 211 Main Street, 717 Larkin Williams Road, and 757 Larkin Williams Road. In their
motion, the garnishees request “that this Court take such action as may be necessary or desirable in
order to clarify the rights of the parties herein in and to the properties to which Jeanne Nangle has
acquired some rights or claim by virtue of said Sheriff’s deeds.”
The Court will deny without prejudice garnishees’ motion. First, these newly-acquired
properties of Ms. Nangle do not appear to be the subject to this Court’s preliminary order in aid of
execution, which was directed to an earlier execution of property “known and numbered 313 Main

-3-

Street, Fenton, Missouri” and “Lot 7 of Block 3 of the Town of Fenton,” which does not appear to
have a street address. See Preliminary Order in Aid of Execution, Doc. 313, Ex. 4. In fact, it is
unclear to whom these newly-acquired properties belong. The Nangles state that garnishee Jeanne
Nangle has filed a quiet title action with respect to these properties in St. Louis County Circuit Court
against Ms. Brockman. See Nangle v. Brockman, et al., No. 11SL-CC04925 (filed Dec. 15, 2011).
Reviewing the docket of that case, the Court notes that along with Ms. Brockman, Ms. Nangle has
sued three other defendants, William T. Forgy (Trustee), LLP Mortgage Ltd., and Ivan Schenberg.
See id. Because this quiet title case is pending in state court, title to the properties is unclear.
Because there is currently pending a quiet title action in state court with respect to the
properties, this Court finds premature any ruling on garnishees’ motion to dissolve, modify,
terminate, or otherwise determine or conclude this Court’s preliminary order in aid of execution and
of creditors bill and equitable garnishment and related proceedings. The Court will deny without
prejudice the garnishees’ motion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the garnishees’ motion to dissolve, modify, terminate, or
otherwise determine or conclude this Court’s preliminary order in aid of execution and of creditors
bill and equitable garnishment and related proceedings is DENIED without prejudice. [Doc. 358]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the garnishees’ motion for leave to deposit certified
copies of deeds into registry of the Court is DENIED. [Doc. 357]

__________________________________
CHARLES A. SHAW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 26th day of February, 2014.

-4-