Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District in St. Louis
ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, has dismissed an appeal filed by a man challenging a circuit court’s denial of his request for declaratory and clarifying relief related to a 2014 judgment involving the City of Richmond Heights and a condemnation action.
In an opinion filed September 8, the three-judge panel concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because there was no statutory right to appeal the circuit court’s ruling. The court also denied all pending motions.
The dispute stems from a 2007 effort by the city of Richmond Heights to condemn property owned by a trust for redevelopment. Clinton L. Watson was a successor trustee of the trust.
After the circuit court entered an order of condemnation, the property owners sought relief from the Missouri Court of Appeals by filing a petition for a writ of prohibition.
The appeals court issued a permanent writ prohibiting the circuit court from taking any action other than dismissing the condemnation case after determining that the city had failed to follow certain statutory procedural requirements.
The appeals court also found that Richmond Heights was entitled to the return of money it had paid into the court registry for the property.
In August 2014, the circuit court entered a final judgment ordering that the city receive the money it had deposited, that title to the property be reinstated as it existed before the condemnation proceedings, that a copy of the order be filed with the recorder of deeds and that the condemnation action be dismissed with prejudice.
According to the appellate court, Watson made numerous unsuccessful attempts during the following 11 years to have that judgment set aside. In December 2025, he filed a “Motion for Declaratory Judgment and for Clarification.”
In that motion, Watson sought declarations and clarification concerning what he described as the continuing status of the condemnation action, unresolved statutory obligations and the interpretation of certain statutes.
Watson asked the circuit court to declare that the condemnation proceeding remained pending until the city either lawfully acquired the property or elected to abandon the proceeding in writing.
He also sought a declaration that the 2014 judgment did not terminate the city’s obligation to take one of those actions and that the circuit court retained jurisdiction until such action occurred.
His motion further asserted that the city’s removal of the property from the redevelopment plan and the physical encirclement of the property by development constituted factual abandonment, elimination of necessity or a constructive taking.
Watson additionally asked the circuit court to identify the maximum constitutionally permissible period for a condemnation action to remain pending and to identify the specific statutory event that terminated the proceeding, if it was no longer pending.
He also sought clarification about whether the unresolved status of the condemnation action had resulted in an ongoing constitutional impairment.
In responding to the city’s opposition to the motion, however, Watson acknowledged that he was seeking “no enforcement.” The circuit court denied his motion, prompting his appeal.
The Missouri Court of Appeals said it was required to examine its jurisdiction on its own and noted that the right to appeal is purely statutory.
The court determined that the only possible statutory basis for Watson’s appeal was a provision allowing appeals from a “special order after final judgment in the cause.”
Before the parties submitted briefs, the appeals court ordered Watson to show why his appeal should not be dismissed, noting that the denial of his motion did not appear to qualify as a special order because it did not concern enforcement of the final judgment.
Watson argued that the ruling was appealable because it resolved a post-judgment controversy regarding the parties’ statutory rights and obligations.
The court rejected that argument, finding that a special order after final judgment applies only to orders involving enforcement of a final judgment or efforts to prevent its enforcement.
Because Watson acknowledged that his motion did not seek enforcement of the 2014 judgment or attempt to prevent its enforcement, the court found that his request was unrelated to compliance with or satisfaction of that judgment.
Instead, the motion sought declarations and clarification regarding the status of the condemnation action, the city’s statutory obligations and the possible effect of the dismissal on Watson’s constitutional rights.
The court concluded that the circuit court’s denial of Watson’s motion was not an appealable special order and dismissed the appeal.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, case number: ED114255
