Topping Estates, Carey Mullen, Eric Danker, and Carter Oldfield, Appellants, vs. The Spalitto Living Trust, Peter J. Spalitto, and Susan V. Spalitto, Respondents.

TOPPING ESTATES, CAREY MULLEN, ) No. ED111623 ERIC DANKER, AND CARTER OLDFIELD, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court Appellants, ) of St. Louis County ) vs. ) Honorable Matthew H. Hearne ) THE SPALITTO LIVING TRUST, PETER J. ) SPALITTO, AND SUSAN V. SPALITTO, ) ) Respondents. ) FILED: November 28, 2023 Introduction Topping Estates, a subdivision association, through and with its alleged trustees, Carey Mullen, Eric Danker, and Carter Oldfield,

(collectively, "Appellants") appeal from the circuit court's amended order and judgment granting partial summary judgment in favor of the Spalitto Living Trust, Peter J. Spalitto, and Susan V. Spalitto (collectively "the Spalittos") and denying partial summary judgment to Appellants. The order found that Topping Estates' indentures were expired, void, or invalid, and thus had no restricting effect on the Spalittos, who owned a lot in Topping Estates. Although the Spalittos' amended counterclaims remained pending, the circuit court declared there was no just reason for delaying an appeal of the order, and it certified the

therefore do not constitute a distinct judicial unit. See id. at 223 (quoting Gibson, 952 S.W.2d at 24-25). Count III of the Amended Counterclaims, which also remains pending, alleges abuse of p rocess resulting from Appellants' attempt to enforce void or invalid restrictions upon the Spalittos for an improper purpose. Success on this claim will likewise require the Spalittos to prove that the Indentures sought to be enforced by the alleged trustees were neither valid nor e nforceable. See Energy Mkt. 709, LLC, 614 S.W.3d at 649 (finding a circuit court did not dispose of a distinct judicial unit where the order declared an ordinance was invalid and void but f ailed to resolve whether attempts to enforce that ordinance violated other constitutional rights). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that none of the counterclaims currently pending in the circuit court relate to the validity of the Indentures. Rather, the record clearly supports a finding that the pending claims embodied within the Spalittos' Amended Counterclaims, like the claims resolved by the March 2023 Judgment, depend on whether the amendments to the Indentures were properly enacted and thus enforceable. See McClain v. Landmark Equity Grp., LLC, 584 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019) (holding no distinct judicial unit was formed where the resolved claim involved the propriety of a foreclosure sale of a property and the pending claims sought remedies related to the sale). In summary, the validity of the Indentures, the direct interplay between those restrictions and the Lot, and the various methods for enforcing the Indentures are operative facts that run throughout both the March 2023 Judgment and the counterclaims that remain pending in the circuit court. See Wilson, 600 S.W.3d at 773. Because the pending Amended Counterclaims arise o ut of the same operative facts as those claims resolved in the March 2023 Judgment, we 14