3018 Pershall, LLC, Appellant, v. Outfront Media, LLC, et al., Respondents.

3018 PERSHALL, LLC, ) No. ED113029 ) Appellant, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County v. ) Cause No. 21SL-CC01525 ) OUTFRONT MEDIA, LLC, et al., ) Honorable Virginia Lay ) Respondents. ) Filed: May 20, 2025

Introduction Appellant 3018 Pershall, LLC bought a commercial property containing a billboard from its affiliate company, which had purchased that property at a tax sale. Appellant sued Respondents LMRK Propco ("Landmark"), which owns an easement allowing it to access and lease space on the property for the billboard, and Outfront Media LLC ("Outfront"), the lessee of space on the property for the billboard, for declaratory judgment and to quiet title. After a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment against Appellant, finding that Respondents held interests in the property that survived the tax sale. On appeal, Appellant alleges the trial court erred in entering judgment for Respondents because Landmark's alleged easement violates public policy and Landmark does not have a valid easement that survived the tax sale. Appellant also argues it gave proper notice to all parties and

2

owns the property outright because Respondents failed to raise a necessary affirmative defense to the contrary. Finally, Appellant avers the trial court's refusal to declare that Appellant owns the property outright amounts to a failure by the trial court to issue a single, final judgment. Appellant provides no Missouri authority for its claim that the easement is void for public policy reasons, and Landmark holds a valid easement under Missouri law. The trial court did not err in adjudicating the notice issue, as Respondents were not required to raise an affirmative defense and otherwise rebutted Appellant's prima facie evidence of notice. Appellant's final point that the trial court failed to issue a single, final judgment is unpreserved, and we decline to review it. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Factual and Procedural Background Facts Appellant owns 3018 Pershall, a small plot of land measuring roughly 105 feet by 120 feet located near Interstate 270 in St. Louis County. In the 1990s, National Advertising Company leased part of the property from the owner and constructed a billboard. This billboard occupies approximately a 30-foot by 50-foot section of the property. According to the lease, the sign was considered the property of National Advertising Company. In 1997, Respondent Outfront's predecessor acquired National Advertising Company's lease and the billboard structure. In 1999, Outfront's predecessor entered a new lease with the owner of the property. Pursuant to the new lease, the lessee was required to pay as part of its rent "any taxes . . . paid or payable by LESSEE in connection with the Sign Structure(s) other than income taxes." In 2010, Joseph Afshari, the then-owner of the property, entered an "Easement and Assignment of Lease Agreement" with LD Acquisition Company LLC. This easement was

3

transferred twice, most recently in 2017 to Respondent Landmark. The assignment of the lease made Landmark the lessor of the space on the property containing the billboard operated and owned by Outfront. The purported easement is made up of two parts: an exclusive easement and a non-exclusive easement. The exclusive easement was granted "for the purpose of leasing space on the Property to outdoor advertising tenants"; the non-exclusive easement is an access easement "in, to, under and across the Property adequate to allow ingress and egress to the [exclusive] Easement." The easement and assignment of lease documents were filed with the St. Louis County Recorder of Deeds. Though Outfront paid its portion of the real estate taxes to Joseph Afshari from 2011 through 2018, it is undisputed that Afshari did not pay any real estate taxes on the property during that period. February Properties, an affiliate company of Appellant 3018 Pershall, LLC, purchased the property in a tax sale in August 2019. February Properties then applied for and received a collector's deed from St. Louis County on November 30, 2020. February Properties then sold the property to Appellant. Procedural Background After Appellant purchased the property, it filed a lawsuit against Respondent Outfront on April 2, 2021. After the trial court ordered necessary parties joined to the lawsuit, Appellant filed its Amended Petition also naming Respondent Landmark and other third-party defendants. The trial court ultimately entered default judgment in favor of Appellant and against the third-party defendants. Respondents Outfront and Landmark filed a motion for summary judgment on the third count of Appellant's Amended Petition, which the trial court granted. The remaining two counts proceeded to a one-day bench trial. Count I sought a declaratory judgment "that: (i) Plaintiff has

4

'free and clear ownership of the Property'; (ii) that Plaintiff 'also now owns, free and clear, all structures and improvements situated on the land'; and (iii) that Plaintiff owns such structures or improvements 'free and clear of any rights asserted by Defendants.'" Count II was an action to quiet title seeking the same relief as Count I. During the bench trial, Appellant presented evidence of redemption notices it had sent to Joseph Afshari and his heirs, the Metropolitan Sewer District, SunTrust Bank, and others with potential interests in the property before it could receive a collector's deed. The trial court excluded some of this evidence, specifically Exhibit 7, which contained an affidavit and documents that Appellant submitted to St. Louis County in order to receive its collector's deed. The trial court excluded Exhibit 7 for lack of foundation due to the authenticating witness's evasive testimony and lack of personal knowledge. The trial court held in its order and judgment that the property of Appellant 3018 Pershall, LLC, is burdened by Respondent Landmark's easement, which is a valid easement of record and/or in use. The trial court also held that the billboard survived the tax sale because it was an improvement within the scope and area of the easement. Appellant now appeals the trial court's order and judgment. Discussion Appellant raises four points on appeal. Its first two points challenge the validity of Respondent Landmark's easement to access and lease the billboard on Appellant's property. In Appellant's first point, it argues the servitude was void ab initio because it violates public policy by avoiding taxes. In Appellant's second point, it argues that the servitude did not survive the tax sale because it is not a valid easement as required by Section 140.722. 1 Appellant's third point

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to RSMo (2016) as amended.

5

challenges the trial court's refusal to determine whether Appellant owns the property outright because it provided the requisite notice to interested parties and Respondents did not plead an affirmative defense. Finally, Appellant's fourth point challenges the trial court's failure to adjudicate Appellant's outright ownership of the property as inconsistent with the trial court's duty to issue a single, final judgment. Standard of Review In an appeal from a court-tried civil case, this Court's review is governed by Murphy v. Carron. K.E.S. v. S.R.S., 700 S.W.3d 544, 551 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024); E.M.B. v. A.L., 462 S.W.3d 450, 452 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). Murphy sets forth the following standards of review: "the decree or judgment of the trial court will be sustained by the appellate court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law." Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). This Court applies de novo review to questions of law decided in court-tried cases. Pearson v. Koster, 367 S.W.3d 36, 43 (Mo. banc 2012). Rule 84.04 Rule 84.04(d)(1) requires an appellant to "[s]tate concisely the legal reasons for the appellant's claim of reversible error" in its point relied on. 2 The requirements of Rule 84.04 are mandatory. Lexow v. Boeing Co., 643 S.W.3d 501, 505 (Mo. banc 2022). While Appellant's points relied on meet the requirements of the rule, they go on to add subpoints and additional legal reasons for the claims of error. Thus, the points are multifarious in violation of Rule 84.04(d)(1), resulting in unpreserved allegations of error. See T.G. v. D.W.H., 648 S.W.3d 42, 46, 49 (Mo. App. E.D.

2 All Rule references are to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules (2023), unless otherwise indicated.

6

2022). We nonetheless choose to review Appellant's arguments ex gratia because they are readily understandable. Wolk v. Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co., 701 S.W.3d 659, 668 (Mo. App. E.D. 2024). Point I Appellant's first point argues the trial court misapplied the law because the easement was void ab initio in that the easement violated public policy by frustrating the state's ability to collect taxes. Appellant offers some citations to Missouri cases for its proposition that contracts violating public policy are void ab initio, but those cases did not involve easements, were not decided on public policy grounds, or otherwise are inapt. 3 Thus, Appellant's Point I is bereft of any support in Missouri caselaw for its proposition that the legal interest before us violates public policy and is void ab initio. Appellant defaults to the Restatement (Third) of Property, Section 3.1, which proposes a balancing test to determine whether a contract or servitude in connection with real property violates public policy. Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 3.1 (Am. Law Inst. 2000). Pursuant to that test, Appellant urges us to "assess[] the impact of the servitude, identify[] the public interests that would be adversely affected by leaving the servitude in force, and weigh[] the predictable harm against the interests in enforcing the servitude." Id. § 3.1 cmt. i. Appellant fails to acknowledge that no Missouri court has adopted the balancing test in Section 3.1 of the Restatement (Third). We decline to do so here, leaving Appellant's Point I

3 Appellant refers us to two cases deciding contracts were void as against public policy. Eisenminger v. Nat'l Indem. Co., 699 S.W.3d 583 (Mo. App. W.D. 2024) (citing Hays v. Mo. Highways Transp. Comm'n, 62 S.W.3d 538, 540 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001)) (assignment of personal injury claims); Hosp. Dev. Corp. v. Park Lane Land Co., 813 S.W.2d 904 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991) (practice of architecture without a license).

7

without legal support. 4 Appellant's public policy argument is better directed to the Missouri General Assembly. Point I is denied. Point II Appellant's second point argues the trial court misapplied the law because the easement was extinguished by the tax sale pursuant to Section 140.722. Section 140.722 provides, "Any sale of lands under this chapter shall be subject to valid recorded covenants running with the land and to valid easements of record or in use." Appellant argues Landmark's interest is not an easement at a