{"disclaimer":"This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source.","topic":{"slug":"estate-probate","label":"Estate / Probate","description":null,"totalCases":101,"relatedPracticeAreas":[]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":10},{"year":2019,"count":9},{"year":2020,"count":12},{"year":2021,"count":16},{"year":2022,"count":9},{"year":2023,"count":10},{"year":2024,"count":17},{"year":2025,"count":16},{"year":2026,"count":2}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappd:parent-227575","opinionId":"c5fb9de8-d068-5957-a5d1-ade56c385872","slug":"in-the-matter-of-lauren-micaela-taylor-113222","caseName":"In the matter of:  Lauren Micaela Taylor.","caseNumber":"ED113222","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-11-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Lauren Taylor and her mother appealed the St. Charles County Probate Court's denial of their motions to set aside thirteen orders from a Georgia Probate Court and to reopen a terminated guardianship and conservatorship case. The Probate Court had denied the motions for lack of jurisdiction, finding the underlying case was terminated. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that the Probate Commissioner's orders denying the motions were not timely confirmed by a judge as required by Missouri law, thus no final appealable judgment existed.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227575","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-lauren-micaela-taylor-113222","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87821:2025-11-18","opinionId":"82a8e8fd-986a-5a8a-b15d-593102ec0f28","slug":"in-the-matter-of-edward-l-eisenstein-deceased-margaret-delacy-v-world-wil-d87821","caseName":"In the Matter of Edward L. Eisenstein, Deceased \nMargaret Delacy\nvs.\nWorld Wildlife Fund, Missouri Botanical Garden, Cousteau Society, The Nature Conservancy, and Ecohealth Alliance, Inc., Successor-In-Interest to Wildlife Preservation Trust International","caseNumber":"WD87821","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-11-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Margaret DeLacy, Decedent's sister and only heir-at-law, was appointed personal representative of Edward L. Eisenstein's intestate estate. Appellants, five organizations named as beneficiaries in a purported will, challenged this appointment and the probate court's finding that the will was untimely presented. The probate court ruled the will was a legal nullity due to late presentation under section 473.050, RSMo, and declined to remove DeLacy. The appellate court affirmed, finding DeLacy's initial application for letters complied with statutory requirements, triggering the six-month limitations period, and that no abuse of discretion occurred in her appointment.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227535","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-edward-l-eisenstein-deceased-margaret-delacy-v-world-wil-d87821","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc100942:2025-11-04","opinionId":"81e5ae2a-ec38-512c-83e2-39edb0457357","slug":"diana-maune-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-neil-j-maune-resp-100942","caseName":"Diana Maune, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Neil J. Maune, Respondent, vs. Marcus Raichle, Jr. and the Maune Raichle Law Firm, Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC100942","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2025-11-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Marcus Raichle and the Maune Raichle Law Firm appealed the circuit court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration against the Estate of Neil J. Maune. The dispute arose from the distribution of life insurance proceeds after Neil Maune's death, with the Estate claiming the funds should have gone to a different entity. The Missouri Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's decision, holding that under Missouri's aggregate theory of partnerships, Maune and Raichle's individual signatures on the operating agreement bound their general partnership to arbitrate. The Court remanded the case with instructions for the circuit court to sustain the motion to compel arbitration, deferring questions of arbitration scope to the arbitrator.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","other","appellate-procedure","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227015","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/diana-maune-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-neil-j-maune-resp-100942","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38886:2025-07-16","opinionId":"dd22d7e2-7762-55aa-a842-129ccac296f1","slug":"in-the-estate-of-quentin-lee-jones-deceased-d38886","caseName":"In the Estate of QUENTIN LEE JONES, Deceased.","caseNumber":"SD38886","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-07-16","year":2025,"display_summary":"Mary Beth Jones, surviving spouse of Quentin Lee Jones, appealed the Probate Court's approval of a final settlement for Decedent's estate. She argued the court erred by approving the settlement while objections and a Petition for Discovery of Assets remained unresolved. The appellate court agreed, vacating the judgment and remanding the case. It held that the Probate Court lacked authority to approve the final settlement without a hearing on the objections and without resolving the pending discovery of assets petition, as required by statute.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=222254","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-quentin-lee-jones-deceased-d38886","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86931:2025-06-24","opinionId":"16b907bb-c78b-5c51-90a5-9404f00295db","slug":"in-the-matter-of-arthur-c-claypoole-protectee-janet-ravenscraft-v-jennife-d86931","caseName":"In the Matter of Arthur C. Claypoole, Protectee; Janet Ravenscraft\nvs. \nJennifer Claypoole","caseNumber":"WD86931","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2025-06-24","year":2025,"display_summary":"Janet Ravenscraft appealed an order appointing Jennifer Claypoole as the sole guardian and conservator of their father, Arthur, and removing Janet as co-guardian and co-conservator. The appellate court determined that the order was an immediately appealable interlocutory order under Missouri probate law. However, the court dismissed Janet's appeal as untimely, holding that her notice of appeal was filed 116 days after the order, well beyond the ten-day period required for such interlocutory orders.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221496","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-arthur-c-claypoole-protectee-janet-ravenscraft-v-jennife-d86931","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112704:2025-05-06","opinionId":"24530230-6ee0-52c5-9f31-f0b7a380689a","slug":"barbara-j-bonin-as-personal-representative-for-the-estate-of-thomas-r-kee-112704","caseName":"Barbara J. Bonin, as Personal Representative for the Estate of Thomas R. Keener, Respondent, v. Janie Gould, Darrin Phillips, and Amanda Phillips, Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED112704","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-05-06","year":2025,"display_summary":"Barbara J. Bonin, as personal representative for the Estate of Thomas R. Keener, sued Keener's stepchildren, Janie Gould, Darrin Phillips, and Amanda Phillips, alleging undue influence, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The circuit court found in favor of the Estate, voiding beneficiary deeds, finding unjust enrichment, and awarding attorney's fees. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, reversed the award of attorney's fees, but affirmed the circuit court's findings regarding undue influence and unjust enrichment.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220493","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/barbara-j-bonin-as-personal-representative-for-the-estate-of-thomas-r-kee-112704","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37656:2025-04-25","opinionId":"25264c6f-3e35-51b2-a01c-08e172c71f36","slug":"christine-bell-kaplan-appellantcross-respondent-v-mary-c-schwarze-et-al-r-d37656","caseName":"CHRISTINE BELL-KAPLAN, Appellant/Cross-Respondent\nv.\nMARY C. SCHWARZE, et al, Respondents/Cross-Appellants","caseNumber":"SD37656","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-04-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Christine Bell-Kaplan appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of the Schwarzes in a quiet title and declaratory judgment action concerning two tracts of land. Kaplan alleged Henrietta Schwarze lacked the mental capacity to execute deeds and powers of attorney that ultimately conveyed the property to Henrietta's nieces and nephews, revoking prior beneficiary deeds to Kaplan. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all points of Kaplan's appeal, finding she failed to meet her burden of proof or properly preserve certain arguments. However, the court reversed and remanded the trial court's decision to set aside costs against Kaplan, holding that the Schwarzes, as the prevailing party, were entitled to recover costs.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","estate-probate","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=220013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/christine-bell-kaplan-appellantcross-respondent-v-mary-c-schwarze-et-al-r-d37656","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38541:2025-03-18","opinionId":"242e0450-c59d-58b0-8729-45bf6b001bbf","slug":"in-the-matter-of-kyong-spruill-an-adult-j-pia-spruill-petitioner-responde-d38541","caseName":"In the Matter of KYONG SPRUILL, An Adult, \nJ-PIA SPRUILL, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nARTHUR SPRUILL, JR., Intervenor-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38541","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-18","year":2025,"display_summary":"Arthur Spruill, Jr. appealed the trial court's judgment appointing his sister, J-Pia Spruill, as guardian and conservator for their mother, Kyong Spruill, who suffered from dementia. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that Arthur's point regarding ineffective assistance of counsel for Kyong was moot due to Kyong's death during the appeal. Additionally, the court determined that Arthur failed to preserve his remaining points for appellate review by not presenting the alleged errors to the trial court and obtaining adverse rulings.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218573","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-kyong-spruill-an-adult-j-pia-spruill-petitioner-responde-d38541","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112630:2025-02-25","opinionId":"7380274d-f58c-53b3-9aec-bce665196c84","slug":"first-community-credit-union-v-samuel-rowley-sheryl-a-rowley-appellants-a-112630","caseName":"First Community Credit Union v. Samuel Rowley, Sheryl A. Rowley, Appellants, and Archdiocese of St. Louis, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED112630","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-02-25","year":2025,"display_summary":"Samuel and Sheryl Rowley appealed a summary judgment ruling that a durable power of attorney (DPOA) did not authorize them to designate themselves as payable-on-death (POD) beneficiaries of Thomas L. Nicastro's financial accounts. Nicastro had previously designated the Archdiocese of St. Louis as the sole beneficiary. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, strictly construing the DPOA and finding that its language did not explicitly authorize the Rowleys to engage in self-dealing by naming themselves as beneficiaries.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=217797","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/first-community-credit-union-v-samuel-rowley-sheryl-a-rowley-appellants-a-112630","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:parent-214553","opinionId":"b81ec5e6-bf2a-59a3-9235-fdb555bd9b21","slug":"in-the-interest-of-znb-and-alc-minor-children-under-seventeen-years-of-ag-d38171","caseName":"IN THE INTEREST OF:  Z.N.B. and A.L.C., Minor children under seventeen years of age, CARTER COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICER, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nB.L.C., Intervenor-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38171","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-11-14","year":2024,"display_summary":"B.L.C., a foster parent, appealed a judgment from the probate division that awarded guardianship of two minor children to their maternal great aunt. The foster parent challenged the judgment appointing the great aunt as guardian. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the foster parent lacked statutory standing to appeal the guardianship judgment because she did not qualify as an \"interested person\" under the relevant probate code provisions.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","estate-probate","family-law","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=214553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-interest-of-znb-and-alc-minor-children-under-seventeen-years-of-ag-d38171","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112400:2024-10-01","opinionId":"37fb1b15-5232-53a8-99aa-e63a49cfebb8","slug":"in-the-matter-of-ess-112400","caseName":"In the matter of:  E.S.S.","caseNumber":"ED112400","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-10-01","year":2024,"display_summary":"Mother appealed the probate court's sua sponte order removing her as conservator of her minor son's estate. The removal occurred after a hearing on Mother's petition for reimbursement of expenses, without prior notice that her conservatorship was at issue. The appellate court reversed the removal, holding that the circuit court failed to comply with statutory notice provisions required for removing a conservator, and remanded the case for Mother's reinstatement.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=213120","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-ess-112400","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37525:2024-08-30","opinionId":"a4f6d94d-319c-59f8-b0cb-20a5fef6f617","slug":"michael-c-laws-jr-and-malinda-a-salinger-plaintiffs-appellants-v-j-christ-d37525","caseName":"MICHAEL C. LAWS, JR., and MALINDA A. SALINGER, Plaintiffs-Appellants\nv.\nJ. CHRISTOPHER ALLEN, Personal Representative, and SUBSTITUTED PARTIES MOREAU, Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37525","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Michael Laws, Jr., and Malinda Salinger, children of the Decedent, contested their father's 2015 Will, which left them half of his estate, arguing they were \"interested persons\" with standing. The trial court granted summary judgment against them, concluding they lacked standing because a prior revocable trust excluded them from its assets. The appellate court vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case, holding that summary judgment is an improper disposition for lack of standing, and that the Children did have standing because a significant inheritance was part of the Estate, not the Trust, and would pass to them via intestate succession if the 2015 Will was set aside.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211019","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-c-laws-jr-and-malinda-a-salinger-plaintiffs-appellants-v-j-christ-d37525","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38239:2024-08-15","opinionId":"b5d78a2d-c952-5394-aa34-cca6324a43b1","slug":"in-the-estate-of-quentin-lee-jones-deceased-mary-beth-jones-appellant-v-a-d38239","caseName":"In the Estate of QUENTIN LEE JONES, Deceased, \nMARY BETH JONES, Appellant\nv.\nADAM CHRISTOPHER JONES, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD38239","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-08-15","year":2024,"display_summary":"Mary Beth Jones, the surviving spouse of Quentin Lee Jones, appealed the probate division's denial of her motion to substitute herself as personal representative for the estate and to transfer the proceedings to Hickory County. The probate court had found the decedent was domiciled in Polk County and that Spouse was not qualified to serve as personal representative. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the domicile finding and that Spouse's failure to apply for letters within 20 days and her lack of qualification justified the denial of her motion.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210393","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-quentin-lee-jones-deceased-mary-beth-jones-appellant-v-a-d38239","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111275:2024-07-30","opinionId":"ad0bdfda-3056-5b69-aa08-3a4ae0c1e770","slug":"david-broy-et-al-respondents-v-diane-broy-appellant-111275","caseName":"David Broy, et al., Respondents, v. Diane Broy, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111275","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-30","year":2024,"display_summary":"Diane Broy appealed a trial court judgment that found she breached her fiduciary duties as her mother's attorney-in-fact, engaged in self-dealing, and failed to maintain her mother's estate plan, awarding damages and imposing a constructive trust in favor of her siblings, David Broy and Lisa Lyon. The appellate court affirmed the findings of breach of fiduciary duty and the siblings' standing as \"successors in interest\" under Section 404.717. However, it reversed the imposition of the constructive trust, finding insufficient evidence to identify a specific res, and instead entered a money judgment for the siblings and remanded for a determination of appellate attorney's fees.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","trusts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=210054","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-broy-et-al-respondents-v-diane-broy-appellant-111275","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111518:2024-07-02","opinionId":"aad16bfb-ad4f-59ea-b87c-cde67af602ef","slug":"deborah-pagoria-appellant-v-jerrold-pagoria-personal-representative-of-th-111518","caseName":"Deborah Pagoria, Appellant, vs. Jerrold Pagoria, Personal Representative of the Estate of Nick S. Pagoria, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111518","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-07-02","year":2024,"display_summary":"Deborah Pagoria appealed the probate court's judgment denying her claim against the Estate of Nick S. Pagoria. The probate court found that Deborah breached a settlement agreement with her ex-husband, Nick S. Pagoria, by failing to execute a beneficiary deed as required by their divorce agreement. The appellate court affirmed, holding that because both parties mutually breached the contract, Deborah could not enforce its terms against the Estate. The court also concluded that allowing evidence of Deborah's breach was not an impermissible collateral attack on the divorce judgment.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","contracts","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=209434","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/deborah-pagoria-appellant-v-jerrold-pagoria-personal-representative-of-th-111518","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111925:2024-04-23","opinionId":"e1c350bc-74c0-5b53-abfa-ba2d5775ae0d","slug":"in-the-estate-of-michall-duncan-deceased-111925","caseName":"In the Estate of Michall Duncan, Deceased.","caseNumber":"ED111925","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-23","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants challenged a probate court's determination that Jennifer Duncan Criswell was the heir of her biological father, Michall Duncan, arguing that her subsequent adoption by her stepfather removed her from Decedent's bloodline. The Appellants also contended Criswell's petition for heirship was time-barred and that they had acquired title through adverse possession. The appellate court affirmed the probate court's judgment, holding that heirship is determined at the date of death and is not retroactively affected by a later adoption. The court further found that the petition was not time-barred and that adverse possession claims were outside the scope of an heirship determination.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","family-law","civil-procedure","property-real-estate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207504","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-michall-duncan-deceased-111925","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111244:2024-04-16","opinionId":"30716bc8-db88-5999-bd93-33ab90010fd6","slug":"parkside-financial-bank-trust-respondent-v-yvonne-bohac-allen-appellant-111244","caseName":"Parkside Financial Bank & Trust, Respondent, vs. Yvonne Bohac Allen, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111244","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"Yvonne Bohac Allen appealed from a probate court's judgment instructing Parkside Financial Bank & Trust on the administration of a Trust. Allen's appeal alleged conspiracy, fraud, bias, and constitutional violations, requesting a mistrial or negation of all orders. The appellate court dismissed the appeal because Allen's brief failed to comply with Rule 84.04's mandatory briefing requirements, despite being given multiple opportunities to amend.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","trusts","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207296","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/parkside-financial-bank-trust-respondent-v-yvonne-bohac-allen-appellant-111244","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111819:2024-04-09","opinionId":"bd0e5cde-8354-5092-bdf6-a76944cb1edc","slug":"susan-fenlon-et-al-appellants-v-rebecca-fenlon-respondent-111819","caseName":"Susan Fenlon, et al., Appellants, vs. Rebecca Fenlon, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111819","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-04-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Appellants, Susan Fenlon and other grandchildren, sued Respondent Rebecca Fenlon, alleging interference with their expected nonprobate assets from the Decedent. The trial court dismissed their amended petition, finding the personal representative of the Decedent's probate estate, Bret Moore, was a necessary and indispensable party under § 473.340 and could not be joined. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that § 473.340 does not apply to claims involving nonprobate assets, and therefore Moore was not a necessary and indispensable party.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207116","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/susan-fenlon-et-al-appellants-v-rebecca-fenlon-respondent-111819","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111682:2024-03-05","opinionId":"db2e17e5-7e09-59c1-8b12-e836b059567f","slug":"lara-and-brian-fallon-appellants-v-mark-easley-respondent-111682","caseName":"Lara and Brian Fallon, Appellants, v. Mark Easley, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED111682","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-03-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Lara and Brian Fallon sued attorney Mark Easley for legal malpractice, alleging he failed to timely draft and secure the execution of an amendment to their mother's trust. The proposed amendment would have increased the Fallons' share of the trust. The trial court granted summary judgment for Easley, finding that the Fallons, as non-client prospective beneficiaries of an unexecuted testamentary document, could not bring a malpractice claim. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the Donahue privity exception does not extend to unexecuted testamentary instruments and that the Fallons could not prove proximate causation or damages without an executed document evidencing their mother's intent.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","negligence","summary-judgment","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206137","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lara-and-brian-fallon-appellants-v-mark-easley-respondent-111682","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111188:2024-01-16","opinionId":"fed4d779-d09b-51f9-82a3-05e5d5acd846","slug":"cab-jr-scb-and-sms-by-and-through-their-next-friend-gwb-respondents-v-ken-111188","caseName":"C.A.B., JR., S.C.B., AND S.M.S. BY AND THROUGH THEIR NEXT FRIEND G.W.B., Respondents, vs. KENDRA PERPICH, INDIVIUDALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KAITLIN N. BOSTER, Appellant","caseNumber":"ED111188","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-16","year":2024,"display_summary":"This appeal concerns the right to control the cremated remains of Kaitlin Boster, disputed between her minor children and her mother, Kendra Perpich. The trial court granted summary judgment to the children, ordering the funeral home to deliver the remains to them, and denied Perpich's motion to intervene as personal representative of the estate. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment regarding the remains, finding the children failed to demonstrate their superior right, and remanded for further proceedings. The court also denied Perpich's intervention point as moot, concluding there was no longer a justiciable controversy regarding the personal property.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204574","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cab-jr-scb-and-sms-by-and-through-their-next-friend-gwb-respondents-v-ken-111188","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111494:2024-01-09","opinionId":"1e41bfab-c3e8-50bf-9338-ff1b46bc23cf","slug":"in-the-estate-of-anna-lois-tyner-111494","caseName":"In the Estate of: Anna Lois Tyner","caseNumber":"ED111494","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2024-01-09","year":2024,"display_summary":"Theresa Schultz and Cecile Gregory, daughters of the decedent Anna Lois Tyner, appealed a judgment awarding attorney fees from their mother's estate to their brother, Dennis Tyner. Dennis had successfully defended a will contest brought by the daughters concerning a provision that allowed him to purchase real property from the estate. The appellate court reversed the judgment, concluding that the trial court lacked the authority to award attorney fees from the estate to a litigant who personally benefited from the will contest's outcome.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=204334","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-anna-lois-tyner-111494","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:parent-203855","opinionId":"7fca03cd-746a-5a58-a423-499c53cea7d8","slug":"in-the-matter-of-ashlee-nicole-huelsing-111300","caseName":"In the Matter of Ashlee Nicole Huelsing.","caseNumber":"ED111300","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-12-26","year":2023,"display_summary":"NeuroRestorative appealed the probate division's order setting aside a consent judgment that resolved claims against Tammy Huelsing, individually and as guardian/conservator for her daughter Ashlee, and as co-trustee of Ashlee's supplemental needs trust. Huelsing moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final, appealable judgment. The appellate court sustained Huelsing's motion, holding that the order setting aside the consent judgment was not a final, appealable judgment because it did not fully dispose of all issues or adjudicate the rights of all parties, as claims against Wells Fargo and reinstated claims against Huelsing remained pending. Consequently, NeuroRestorative's appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","estate-probate","trusts","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203855","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-ashlee-nicole-huelsing-111300","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86118:2023-12-19","opinionId":"2e10c929-d849-5e6f-9d2b-319f578ffd5f","slug":"in-the-matter-of-janet-p-marvin-charles-basham-v-christine-louise-kensing-d86118","caseName":"In the Matter of Janet P. Marvin; Charles Basham\nvs. \nChristine Louise Kensinger","caseNumber":"WD86118","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-12-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"Christine Louise Kensinger appealed a probate court judgment appointing Charles Basham as guardian and conservator for his mother, Janet P. Marvin. Kensinger, acting pro se, raised eighteen points on appeal challenging various errors by the probate court. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding Kensinger's brief failed to substantially comply with the mandatory briefing requirements of Rule 84.04, specifically regarding the statement of facts, points relied on, and argument section.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203662","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-janet-p-marvin-charles-basham-v-christine-louise-kensing-d86118","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111110:2023-10-24","opinionId":"96e22f5c-3c70-51c4-88d7-4a3c28291ee1","slug":"melissa-cavin-respondent-v-barrie-hair-appellant-111110","caseName":"Melissa Cavin, Respondent, vs. Barrie Hair, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111110","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-10-24","year":2023,"display_summary":"Barrie Hair appealed from a judgment quieting title to real property in favor of Melissa Cavin. Cavin claimed title through a small estate probate affidavit from her father's estate, while Hair asserted title by adverse possession. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Cavin's probate filings constituted substantial evidence of her title and that Hair failed to prove his possession was hostile for adverse possession.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=202261","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melissa-cavin-respondent-v-barrie-hair-appellant-111110","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37889:2023-09-25","opinionId":"39d46fda-c74a-5439-8d23-0058d4127699","slug":"in-the-estate-of-anthony-m-vrana-decedent-sandra-fidura-phillips-appellan-d37889","caseName":"IN THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY M. VRANA, DECEDENT, SANDRA FIDURA-PHILLIPS, Appellant\nvs.\nAARON WILSON, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD37889","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-25","year":2023,"display_summary":"Sandra Fidura-Phillips, as personal representative for Anthony Vrana's estate, sought court authorization to execute a contract for the sale of real estate. Aaron Wilson intervened, claiming ownership via a beneficiary deed that became effective upon Vrana's death. The probate court denied Fidura-Phillips's petition, ruling that the property was not part of the estate. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that because no deed was delivered prior to Vrana's death, the beneficiary deed transferred ownership to Wilson by operation of law, making specific performance of the contract unavailable.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","property-real-estate","contracts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=201453","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-anthony-m-vrana-decedent-sandra-fidura-phillips-appellan-d37889","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed111010:2023-08-15","opinionId":"3558e4e2-b97a-5385-a7ee-8be72f6368b5","slug":"in-the-matter-of-timothy-lee-isreal-appellant-111010","caseName":"In the Matter of: Timothy Lee Isreal, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED111010","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2023-08-15","year":2023,"display_summary":"Timothy Lee Isreal appealed a circuit court judgment declaring him totally incapacitated and disabled, and appointing a guardian and conservator. Isreal challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the judgment. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, finding it could not review the sufficiency of the evidence due to an incomplete evidentiary record, specifically the absence of a transcript from a prior hearing upon which the circuit court relied.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=198495","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-timothy-lee-isreal-appellant-111010","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37567:2023-04-28","opinionId":"24103319-054d-5ff7-85ef-9c91a57cda32","slug":"jeffrey-baldwin-individually-as-agent-for-his-children-and-grandchildren-d37567","caseName":"JEFFREY BALDWIN, Individually, as agent for his children and grandchildren named below, as Beneficiary of the Roger Woodard Baldwin Revocable Trust dtd. November 5, 2001, as Amended and Restated, and certain sub-trusts created thereunder, and as Trustee of a descendant’s trust in his name as described below, Petitioner-Appellant\nv.\nJAN KAYE BALDWIN, Individually, as Beneficiary, and as Trustee of the Roger Woodard Baldwin Revocable Trust dtd. November 5, 2001, as Amended and Restated, and certain sub-trusts created thereunder,\nand\nKAYLI BALDWIN-HYTEN, Individually, as a Beneficiary of the Roger Woodard Baldwin Revocable Trust dtd. November 5, 2001, as Amended and Restated, and certain sub-trusts created thereunder, and as Trustee of a descendant’s trust in her name as described below,\nand\nANDREA BALDWIN-GREGG, Individually, as a Beneficiary of the Roger Woodard Baldwin Revocable Trust dtd. November 5, 2001, as Amended and Restated, and certain sub-trusts created thereunder, and as Trustee of a descendant’s\ntrust in her name as described below, Respondents-Respondents.","caseNumber":"SD37567","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-04-28","year":2023,"display_summary":"Jeffrey Baldwin appealed the trial court's judgment denying his petition and granting Jan Baldwin's counter/cross-claim for reformation of the Roger Woodard Baldwin Revocable Trust. Jeff argued Jan's reformation claim was barred by a two-year statute of limitations and by the doctrine of laches. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the ten-year statute of limitations applied to reformation claims, not the two-year trust contest statute, and that Jan's claim was not barred by laches as Jeff failed to show special facts demanding extraordinary relief or prejudice.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","civil-procedure","estate-probate","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=195034","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jeffrey-baldwin-individually-as-agent-for-his-children-and-grandchildren-d37567","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37394:2023-03-02","opinionId":"69c2feba-e057-5d80-b3ef-10e8860d5193","slug":"in-the-estate-of-sandra-louise-mclaughlin-nicole-mclaughlin-and-brandon-m-d37394","caseName":"In the Estate of Sandra Louise McLaughlin,\nNICOLE McLAUGHLIN and BRANDON McLAUGHLIN, Appellants\nvs.\nROBERT CANMAN, personally and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Sandra McLaughlin, and BARBARA WAYNER, NANCI MOLENAAR-LOTKOWSKI and SUSAN LUBIENIECKI, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37394","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-03-02","year":2023,"display_summary":"Nicole and Brandon McLaughlin appealed the probate court's denial of their petition for an accounting under Section 461.300, alleging their grandmother, Sandra McLaughlin, made recoverable fraudulent transfers before her death. The probate court found the appellants failed to prove Sandra transferred property to deny them assets or that their claims arose before the transfers, based on the appellants' own allegations of fraud. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the appellants invited the alleged errors by framing their petition on the Missouri Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act, which included the intent and timing requirements the probate court then addressed.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","estate-probate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192974","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-sandra-louise-mclaughlin-nicole-mclaughlin-and-brandon-m-d37394","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37438:2023-02-01","opinionId":"cc18a82d-ec9c-5732-a9cf-393c46c8a3f9","slug":"in-the-estate-of-richard-e-smith-april-m-svec-personal-representative-of-d37438","caseName":"In the Estate of Richard E. Smith,\nAPRIL M. SVEC, Personal Representative of the Estate of Deidre A. Smith, and ASHLEY A. LUX, Appellants\nvs.\nAMIE M. BROOKS, ERIC R. SMITH, and JOSHUA C. SMITH, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37438","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-02-01","year":2023,"display_summary":"April M. Svec, as personal representative of Deidre A. Smith's estate, appealed a probate court judgment concerning an antenuptial agreement between Richard E. Smith and Deidre. The probate court determined that Deidre waived her right to inherit certain real estate, entitling Richard's children from a previous marriage to inherit it. Svec challenged the judgment, arguing Richard's children lacked standing to enforce the antenuptial agreement. The appellate court disagreed, affirming the probate court's judgment.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","contracts","property-real-estate","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192095","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-richard-e-smith-april-m-svec-personal-representative-of-d37438","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99592:2023-01-31","opinionId":"1e996786-068f-58ee-92f3-b34c4a2bb1d4","slug":"lillian-singleton-respondent-v-sheila-singleton-et-al-appellants-c99592","caseName":"Lillian Singleton, Respondent, vs. Sheila Singleton, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"SC99592","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2023-01-31","year":2023,"display_summary":"Lillian Singleton sought to reform a property deed, executed with her deceased husband J.C., claiming a scrivener's error mistakenly included their son Dennis as a remainder interest holder in Tract I, contrary to their estate planning intent. The circuit court reformed the deed, finding Lillian's testimony credible and applying the principle that equity may reform a voluntary instrument. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erroneously declared and misapplied the law because the deed contained a unilateral mistake, which, absent fraud, deception, or bad faith, will not be reformed.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","estate-probate","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192036","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/lillian-singleton-respondent-v-sheila-singleton-et-al-appellants-c99592","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37345:2023-01-06","opinionId":"2b41a9fb-9cae-515e-8b05-4e23c0930751","slug":"louie-r-keen-appellant-v-amber-wolfe-individually-and-in-her-capacity-as-d37345","caseName":"LOUIE R. KEEN, Appellant\nvs.\nAMBER WOLFE, individually and in her capacity as Trustee of the April 4, 2011 Restatement of Revocable Trust Agreement of Rosetta Keen, and CYNTHIA KEEN , Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37345","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-01-06","year":2023,"display_summary":"Louie Keen, a trust beneficiary, appealed the denial of his motion for partial summary judgment on a petition seeking a determination of the applicability of a trust's no-contest clause under the \"safe harbor\" provision of § 456.4-420.1. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It held that an order denying a motion for summary judgment on a safe harbor petition is not an \"order or judgment determining a petition\" as required for appeal under § 456.4-420.3, because such a denial means the issue remains pending and undetermined.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","trusts","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191533","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/louie-r-keen-appellant-v-amber-wolfe-individually-and-in-her-capacity-as-d37345","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85107:2022-12-06","opinionId":"6a7e99f1-35b1-54f0-afa5-e07d7fd13a6b","slug":"in-the-estate-of-arnaldo-soares-barros-deceased-v-maria-barros-mark-alexa-d85107","caseName":"In the Estate of: Arnaldo Soares Barros, Deceased\nvs. \nMaria Barros, Mark Alexander Barros, and Jennifer Ann de Barros","caseNumber":"WD85107","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-12-06","year":2022,"display_summary":"Diana Barros appealed the dismissal of her Petition for Determination of Heirship by the Missouri probate court. The court dismissed the petition because a probate proceeding for the decedent, Arnaldo Soares Barros, was already pending in Florida, where he resided at the time of his death. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that principles of comity justified the dismissal given the ongoing Florida proceedings and Diana's participation therein.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190958","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-arnaldo-soares-barros-deceased-v-maria-barros-mark-alexa-d85107","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed110349:2022-11-22","opinionId":"b6e0fc2a-0c58-5147-968c-5627542e3e20","slug":"in-the-estate-of-marshall-o-buder-sr-deceased-110349","caseName":"In the Estate of: Marshall O. Buder, Sr., Deceased.","caseNumber":"ED110349","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2022-11-22","year":2022,"display_summary":"Howard Weber and Ducks Unlimited, Inc. appealed a trial court order finding their requests for an accounting and appointment of a special fiduciary violated a trust's no-contest clause, thereby forfeiting their beneficial interests. The appellate court reversed in part, holding that a request for an accounting does not violate the no-contest clause. However, the court affirmed in part, concluding that seeking to appoint a special fiduciary to replace the explicitly named trustee does violate the no-contest clause.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=190655","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-marshall-o-buder-sr-deceased-110349","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc99358:2022-07-26","opinionId":"78a3134f-4442-5659-8b26-7b2311bd6c2b","slug":"bruce-s-schlafly-appellant-v-anne-s-cori-respondent-c99358","caseName":"Bruce S. Schlafly, Appellant, vs. Anne S. Cori, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC99358","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2022-07-26","year":2022,"display_summary":"Bruce S. Schlafly (Son) sued Anne S. Cori (Daughter) for abuse of process, alleging Daughter filed a lawsuit to invalidate portions of their mother's trust for improper collateral purposes. The circuit court dismissed Son's petition with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the dismissal, holding that Son's petition contained sufficient allegations regarding the elements of an abuse of process claim to survive a motion to dismiss, and remanded the case for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=188193","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bruce-s-schlafly-appellant-v-anne-s-cori-respondent-c99358","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-187973","opinionId":"ecaa5524-733c-5e7b-a4f8-f716e0bb898b","slug":"in-the-estate-of-luther-hugh-jenkins-deceased-v-wade-a-jenkins-d84550","caseName":"In the Estate of Luther Hugh Jenkins, Deceased\nvs.\nWade A. Jenkins","caseNumber":"WD84550","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-07-19","year":2022,"display_summary":"Wade A. Jenkins appealed the circuit court's partial dismissal of his claim against the estate of Luther Hugh Jenkins, seeking reimbursement for payments made as personal representative. The trial court dismissed the majority of his claim but explicitly left a funeral expense portion pending for a future hearing. The appellate court determined that because the order did not completely dispose of all issues and parties, it was not a final, appealable order. Consequently, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","estate-probate","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187973","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-luther-hugh-jenkins-deceased-v-wade-a-jenkins-d84550","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84347:2022-06-28","opinionId":"3d57a7bf-ecb5-522e-a337-452ffd0a2481","slug":"susan-l-brown-aka-susan-brown-thill-trustee-of-the-eugene-d-brown-trusts-d84347","caseName":"Susan L. Brown (A/K/A Susan Brown-Thill), Trustee of the Eugene D. Brown Trusts Created by Trust Agreement Dated February 27, 1989, et al.,\nvs. \nRichard L. Brown, et al.","caseNumber":"WD84347","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-06-28","year":2022,"display_summary":"Richard L. Brown filed a pro se appeal from a probate court order denying eight post-judgment motions related to the final distribution of the Brown family estate, including partnership terminations and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Brown failed to remedy significant briefing shortcomings under Rule 84.04, which precluded meaningful review of the merits. The court also granted the Trustee Respondents' motion for sanctions and remanded the case for the probate court to determine and award reasonable fees and costs incurred on appeal.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","estate-probate","trusts","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187648","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/susan-l-brown-aka-susan-brown-thill-trustee-of-the-eugene-d-brown-trusts-d84347","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84407:2022-05-03","opinionId":"430d8741-7c26-5636-895b-aae45b7abfd5","slug":"kansas-city-chrome-shop-inc-v-patsy-g-smith-personal-representative-d84407","caseName":"Kansas City Chrome Shop, Inc.\nvs. \nPatsy G. Smith, Personal Representative","caseNumber":"WD84407","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-05-03","year":2022,"display_summary":"Kansas City Chrome Shop, Inc. (KCCS) appealed the circuit court's dismissal of its claim against the estate of Charles Smith for alleged unpaid loans. The circuit court found KCCS lacked statutory authority to make the claim because its corporate articles were forfeited in 1991, and the claim was filed more than three years after dissolution. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under Kansas law, rights acquired during the forfeiture period do not vest upon reinstatement, and any pre-forfeiture right of suit not brought within three years post-forfeiture is disposed of. Consequently, KCCS lacked standing to pursue its claim against the estate.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","other","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186516","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/kansas-city-chrome-shop-inc-v-patsy-g-smith-personal-representative-d84407","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84408:2022-05-03","opinionId":"d3dd15f7-c62c-537c-b89f-64c5523c1a5b","slug":"michael-clark-personal-representative-for-the-estate-of-dora-m-wall-decea-d84408","caseName":"Michael Clark, Personal Representative for the Estate of Dora M. Wall, Deceased\nvs. \nPatsy G. Smith, Personal Representative for the Estate of Charles D. Smith, Deceased","caseNumber":"WD84408","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-05-03","year":2022,"display_summary":"Michael Clark, as personal representative for the Estate of Dora M. Wall, appealed the circuit court's judgment denying Wall's claim against the Estate of Charles D. Smith for an unpaid personal loan. Wall alleged the circuit court erred by denying her claim without an opportunity to present evidence, violating her due process and open court rights. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no due process violation as Wall had presented her evidence in a related case and the alleged novation contract was unambiguous. The court also found the open court claim unpreserved.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186517","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-clark-personal-representative-for-the-estate-of-dora-m-wall-decea-d84408","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd37110:2022-03-28","opinionId":"79b710aa-842a-5a8e-992a-ff1305e126ea","slug":"in-the-matter-of-gerald-e-whisenand-rachelle-d-franzeskos-appellant-russe-d37110","caseName":"IN THE MATTER OF\nGERALD E. WHISENAND,\nRACHELLE D. FRANZESKOS, Appellant\n\nRUSSELL D. WHISENAND, Respondent\nvs.\nREGGIE FATINO and TRACY WHISENAND, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37110","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-03-28","year":2022,"display_summary":"Rachelle Franzeskos appealed the circuit court's judgment regarding a beneficiary deed, claiming it was void due to forgery and statutory deficiencies in its acknowledgment. The circuit court found that the petitioners failed to prove forgery and that the grantor had contractual capacity. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the appellant's arguments concerning the deed's acknowledgment were not preserved for appellate review because they were not explicitly pleaded or decided by the trial court, and the doctrine of trial by implied consent did not apply.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","estate-probate","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=185793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-gerald-e-whisenand-rachelle-d-franzeskos-appellant-russe-d37110","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84235:2022-01-04","opinionId":"9f9c230b-06ba-5f6f-b70e-22182b8fc4fe","slug":"wanda-l-alberts-et-al-v-turnbull-conway-pc-fka-turnbull-stark-pc-and-step-d84235","caseName":"Wanda L. Alberts, et al.\nvs. \nTurnbull Conway, P.C. (f/k/a Turnbull & Stark, P.C.) and Stephen Christopher Conway","caseNumber":"WD84235","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-01-04","year":2022,"display_summary":"Plaintiffs, prospective beneficiaries of a trust, sued Turnbull Conway, P.C. and Stephen Conway for legal malpractice, alleging the attorneys negligently failed to timely draft and secure execution of amendments to Howard L. Walz's trust before his death. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the dismissal, declining to extend the Donahue exception to attorney-client privity to prospective beneficiaries of unexecuted testamentary documents.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","negligence","trusts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=183113","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/wanda-l-alberts-et-al-v-turnbull-conway-pc-fka-turnbull-stark-pc-and-step-d84235","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36775:2021-10-14","opinionId":"873d2e3c-060f-5fbf-911b-5fa5cc155425","slug":"joyce-camp-mcdermot-personally-and-as-beneficiary-and-successor-trustee-u-d36775","caseName":"JOYCE CAMP McDERMOT, personally, and as beneficiary and successor trustee under the Barbara J. Hilderbrand Revocable Trust Agreement dated January 11, 2005, as Amended and Restated, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nDAVID DONER and STEPHANIE DONER, et al., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD36775","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-10-14","year":2021,"display_summary":"Joyce Camp McDermot appealed the denial of her eight-count petition, which sought to challenge prior conservatorship rulings that replaced her as successor trustee and beneficiary of the Barbara J. Hilderbrand Revocable Trust. The trial court declined declaratory relief, found against her on other claims, and refused to quiet title to Hilderbrand's residence in her favor. The appellate court affirmed, holding that McDermot had an adequate remedy at law by appealing the conservatorship rulings and that her claims constituted an impermissible collateral attack on those final judgments.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","estate-probate","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=181240","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/joyce-camp-mcdermot-personally-and-as-beneficiary-and-successor-trustee-u-d36775","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109179:2021-07-20","opinionId":"cec58f8d-b8b2-5c92-9d63-366411971925","slug":"in-the-matter-of-lily-ann-crocker-109179","caseName":"In the Matter of: Lily Ann Crocker","caseNumber":"ED109179","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-07-20","year":2021,"display_summary":"Lily Ann Crocker appealed a judgment from the probate division finding her totally incapacitated and disabled, and appointing her daughter as guardian. Crocker argued she was improperly served and that there was insufficient evidence to support the findings. The appellate court found the service argument lacked merit but reversed and remanded for a new hearing because a transcript of a crucial hearing was missing due to a computer malfunction, preventing meaningful appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178838","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-lily-ann-crocker-109179","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36808:2021-07-13","opinionId":"c1a068ce-bc3e-5853-9c72-eb5d6ab5c95a","slug":"terry-brackney-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-renate-mack-ap-d36808","caseName":"TERRY BRACKNEY, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF RENATE MACK, Appellant\nvs.\nROBERT WALKER and NANCY WALKER, CRYSTAL HOUSE and NATHANIEL HOUSE, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, and CENTURY BANK OF THE OZARKS, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD36808","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-07-13","year":2021,"display_summary":"Terry Brackney, a domiciliary foreign personal representative for Renate Mack's Estate, appealed the denial of his counterclaims for quiet title and constructive trust regarding real estate in Ozark County. The trial court had applied a one-year statute of limitations for admitting a will to probate, finding the claims time-barred. The appellate court reversed the denial of the quiet title claim, holding that the one-year statute of limitations does not apply to quiet title or constructive trust actions brought by a DFPR who has properly filed their appointment. However, the court affirmed the denial of the constructive trust claim on its merits and dismissed the claim for attorney's fees due to lack of preservation.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","estate-probate","civil-procedure","trusts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178734","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/terry-brackney-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-renate-mack-ap-d36808","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109026:2021-07-06","opinionId":"60d262b3-a35e-56d6-9aa7-9ff0c1306f35","slug":"in-the-estate-of-shawn-edward-jacobs-deceased-109026","caseName":"In the Estate of:  Shawn Edward Jacobs, Deceased.","caseNumber":"ED109026","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-07-06","year":2021,"display_summary":"Chad G. Jacobs, Derek T. Jacobs, and Trisha H. Jacobs (Beneficiaries) appealed a judgment requiring them to pay $495,088.95 to the decedent's estate, stemming from a commercial lease guarantee. The trial court found that Stone & Alter Real Estate Company, a creditor, had timely presented its claim to the trustee of the Shawn E. Jacobs Living Trust, and that the trust assets were subject to creditor claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Stone's communications were sufficient to present its claim under Section 456.5-505.5, and dismissed the beneficiaries' second point on appeal for failure to comply with Rule 84.04(d).","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","estate-probate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178459","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-shawn-edward-jacobs-deceased-109026","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36792:2021-06-14","opinionId":"546fd364-a280-5872-b70c-804dc50140ac","slug":"julie-ann-thomas-appellant-v-kurt-e-hdoubler-individually-and-as-trustee-d36792","caseName":"Julie Ann Thomas, Appellant\nvs.\nKurt E. H’Doubler, Individually and as Trustee of the F. T. H’Doubler, Jr., Revocable Trust dated May 2, 2000, and the Francis T. H’Doubler, Jr., Family Trust created thereunder, and as Co-Trustee  \nof the F. T. H’Doubler, Jr., Irrevocable Trust dated May 1, 2000, and the Julie Ann Thomas Trust created thereunder, and as Trustee of the Joan L. H’Doubler Irrevocable Trust dated December 28, \n1982, and the Trust for the benefit of Julie Thomas and the Credit Shelter Trust created thereunder, Sarah Ellen Muegge, Estate of Scott Wesley H’Doubler, Brian Muegge, Individually and as next \nfriend of Simon F. Muegge and Benjamin W. Muegge, Beth McGee, individually and as next friend of Rivers C. McGee and Emmett McGee, Todd H’Doubler, Sally H’Doubler, Laurie Thomas, \nBecky Thomas, Colleen T. Walton, individually and as Co-Guardian of the person of Marie H’Doubler and Co-Conservator of the Estate of Marie H’Doubler, Gary T. Walton, Sr., in his capacity as Co-Guardian of the person of Marie H’Doubler and Co-Conservator of the Estate of Marie H’Doubler, and Rick Steven Denney, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD36792","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-06-14","year":2021,"display_summary":"Julie Ann Thomas, a trust beneficiary, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment against her and an award of attorney fees to the trustees. Thomas had filed a second amended petition, then a third amended petition, seeking a safe harbor determination regarding no-contest clauses in the trusts. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, holding that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment based on the superseded second amended petition without first issuing a safe harbor determination on the operative third amended petition. Consequently, the attorney fees award, which was premised on the erroneous summary judgment, was also reversed.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=178013","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/julie-ann-thomas-appellant-v-kurt-e-hdoubler-individually-and-as-trustee-d36792","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed109192:2021-06-04","opinionId":"4a1738ca-b659-5bca-ad6b-7bce78d08a6b","slug":"patricia-c-berezo-appellant-v-lalo-berezo-et-al-respondent-109192","caseName":"Patricia C. Berezo, Appellant, vs. Lalo Berezo, et al., Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109192","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-06-04","year":2021,"display_summary":"Patricia Berezo appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment and motion to dismiss, which denied her access to funds in her late husband's trust and awarded attorney's fees to the successor trustee. She argued she was a trust beneficiary as \"Grantor's wife,\" that a proposed amendment to the trust was valid, and that she was an an omitted spouse entitled to invade the trust. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trust unambiguously limited benefits to the first wife, the amendment was not properly executed, and the omitted spouse statute did not allow her to invade the trust. The court also affirmed the award of attorney's fees to the successor trustee.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","estate-probate","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177822","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/patricia-c-berezo-appellant-v-lalo-berezo-et-al-respondent-109192","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108755:2021-05-11","opinionId":"0961c26e-1eea-56eb-8d68-418b7df0c78d","slug":"in-the-estate-of-william-ira-andress-deceased-108755","caseName":"In The Estate of: William Ira Andress, Deceased.","caseNumber":"ED108755","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-05-11","year":2021,"display_summary":"Rebecca Pierce and other heirs appealed a probate court judgment granting Daniel J. Palmer's petition to determine heirship, which established Palmer as the biological son of Peter Andress, a deceased son of the Decedent. Appellants challenged the admission of DNA evidence, the qualification of an expert witness, and the sufficiency of evidence for paternity, arguing also that Uniform Parentage Act presumptions should apply. The appellate court affirmed the probate court's judgment, finding no error in the evidentiary rulings and concluding that paternity was established by clear and convincing evidence under the Probate Code, which is not constrained by the UPA.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","evidence","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177195","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-william-ira-andress-deceased-108755","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd85817:2021-05-05","opinionId":"9eb32f24-38fa-5a80-877c-fd1b983b0938","slug":"anna-emealia-brown-v-richard-lotman-brown-d85817","caseName":"Anna Emealia Brown\nvs.\nRichard Lotman Brown","caseNumber":"WD85817","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-05-05","year":2024,"display_summary":"Richard Brown appealed the circuit court's denial of his motion to amend or set aside an order granting marital claims, which he filed after the time for direct appeal had elapsed. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that Rule 74.06, under which Brown filed his motion, was not applicable to the probate proceeding without a specific court order. The court also determined that Brown's motion did not create an independent right to appeal and granted Anna Brown's motion for sanctions, remanding for a determination of attorney's fees.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","estate-probate","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=206475","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/anna-emealia-brown-v-richard-lotman-brown-d85817","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83111:2021-05-04","opinionId":"c8a9bcff-7c90-5c3b-a005-7de33830b18c","slug":"jerry-l-wilson-v-wilda-l-trusley-d83111","caseName":"Jerry L. Wilson\nvs.\nWilda L. Trusley","caseNumber":"WD83111","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-05-04","year":2021,"display_summary":"Jerry Wilson and Wilda Trusley disputed their deceased mother Mona Wilson's late-in-life property transfers. Jerry claimed a business partnership with Mona entitled him to certain assets and that Mona was incapacitated or unduly influenced by Wilda when she transferred property to Wilda. The trial court awarded 158 acres to Jerry and bank accounts/CDs to Wilda, denying Jerry's request for an accounting. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects, including findings on partnership, undue influence, and Mona's competency, but reversed and remanded the denial of Jerry's petition for an accounting, finding the trial court misapplied the law.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","property-real-estate","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177118","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jerry-l-wilson-v-wilda-l-trusley-d83111","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":38,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36733:2021-04-02","opinionId":"da133387-52c8-59c1-97e2-2da428fba39b","slug":"in-the-estate-of-ernest-winders-jr-deceased-nadiene-lucille-burford-petit-d36733","caseName":"In the Estate of: ERNEST WINDERS, JR., Deceased,\nNADIENE LUCILLE BURFORD, Petitioner-Appellant\nv.\nLINDA GUSTIN, Respondent-Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36733","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2021-04-02","year":2021,"display_summary":"Nadiene Burford appealed the dismissal of her petition for accounting against the estate of Ernest Winders, Jr., arguing the statute of limitations had not run, her petition satisfied the written demand requirement, and equitable principles required reversal. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Burford failed to make a timely written demand on the personal representative before filing her action, as required by statute. The court further found no equitable exception to this statutory requirement.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=176333","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-ernest-winders-jr-deceased-nadiene-lucille-burford-petit-d36733","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd84222:2021-03-30","opinionId":"216ebc6a-fb21-53f0-9142-7458b7d79e31","slug":"in-re-erva-rw-kw-v-hpa-ama-d84222","caseName":"In Re: E.R.V.A.\nR.W. & K.W.\nvs. \nH.P.A. & A.M.A.","caseNumber":"WD84222","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-03-30","year":2021,"display_summary":"Mother and Father appealed the circuit court's judgment finding them unwilling, unable, and unfit to assume parental duties for their minor child, E.R.V.A., and ordering letters of guardianship to issue to the paternal aunt and uncle. Parents challenged the constitutionality of section 475.030, RSMo, arguing it violates due process by failing to provide safeguards and resources, and that the probate court erred by applying a preponderance of the evidence standard instead of clear and convincing evidence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the guardianship statute is constitutional and the preponderance of the evidence standard is appropriate for minor guardianship proceedings.","primaryTopic":"family-law","topicSlugs":["family-law","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=175871","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-erva-rw-kw-v-hpa-ama-d84222","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83677:2021-03-16","opinionId":"053b18a8-a4a2-5d91-969d-ab5c10632ed3","slug":"howard-smith-darrell-smith-and-howard-smith-and-darrell-smith-in-their-ca-d83677","caseName":"Howard Smith, Darrell Smith, and Howard Smith and Darrell Smith, In Their Capacities As Co-Trustees Of The Virginia Marie Smith Revocable Trust (An Inter Vivos Trust Agreement) Executed on June 20, 2006\nvs. \nRoger C. Smith and Lavonne Morrisey","caseNumber":"WD83677","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-03-16","year":2021,"display_summary":"Howard and Darrell Smith, individually and as co-trustees of the Virginia Marie Smith Revocable Trust, filed a declaratory judgment action to set aside an amendment to the Trust, alleging Virginia lacked capacity and was unduly influenced by Roger Smith and Lavonne Morrisey. A jury found in favor of Howard and Darrell, concluding the Trust Amendment was invalid due to lack of mental capacity and undue influence. Roger and Lavonne appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for undue influence and the trial court's decision to grant a jury trial. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding substantial evidence supported the undue influence claim and that a jury trial was appropriate for factual issues in a declaratory judgment action.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=175333","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/howard-smith-darrell-smith-and-howard-smith-and-darrell-smith-in-their-ca-d83677","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83520:2021-02-23","opinionId":"a1945db2-a0cd-5945-82cc-90776347bbc2","slug":"in-re-the-estate-of-virgil-d-williams-wardprotectee-janet-rosenauer-v-bet-d83520","caseName":"In Re The Estate of: Virgil D. Williams, Ward/Protectee; Janet Rosenauer\nvs.\nBetty Lou Williams and Kim Bauman","caseNumber":"WD83520","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-02-23","year":2021,"display_summary":"The Andrew County Public Administrator, acting as conservator for Virgil D. Williams, appealed the denial of her request to divide an Edward Jones investment account held as tenants by the entireties with Virgil's wife, Betty L. Williams. Virgil died prior to the appeal's argument and submission. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot, holding that Virgil's death terminated his ownership interest in the account and the conservator's authority, rendering any decision on the merits without practical effect. The court also dismissed a third point on appeal for lack of a discernible argument and an insufficient record.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","estate-probate","property-real-estate","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=173753","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-estate-of-virgil-d-williams-wardprotectee-janet-rosenauer-v-bet-d83520","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-173173","opinionId":"309b90bf-f3be-5236-a6d4-6ffe3f5c94e8","slug":"in-the-estate-of-jose-luis-lindner-deceased-dale-doerhoff-successor-perso-d83652","caseName":"In the Estate of Jose Luis Lindner, Deceased; Dale Doerhoff, Successor Personal Representative\nvs. \nMatthew Concannon","caseNumber":"WD83652","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-01-26","year":2021,"display_summary":"Matthew Concannon appealed the denial of his objection to the final settlement of Jose Luis Lindner's estate. Concannon claimed a priority distribution of $565,000 from the estate, asserting Lindner created a security interest in the proceeds of a promissory note. The trial court denied his objection, finding no valid security interest. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the Lindner Instrument purported to assign the promissory note itself, which was non-assignable without consent, and did not create a separate security interest in the note's proceeds.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=173173","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-jose-luis-lindner-deceased-dale-doerhoff-successor-perso-d83652","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108598:2021-01-19","opinionId":"3a3d3b01-6dc2-5665-a357-b8f07a06641f","slug":"us-bank-na-as-trustee-of-the-living-trust-agreement-of-lorenz-k-ayers-dat-108598","caseName":"U.S. Bank, N.A., as Trustee of the Living Trust Agreement of Lorenz K. Ayers, dated May 3, 1967, as Amended and Restated, Respondent, vs. Elizabeth Molk, Appellant, and Anne Herbst, Catherine Herbst, Donald A. Herbst, Miles Herbst, David C. Molk, Rebecca B. Molk and Peter F. Molk, Defendants.","caseNumber":"ED108598","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-01-19","year":2021,"display_summary":"Elizabeth Molk appealed the probate court's grant of summary judgment to U.S. Bank, as trustee of the Lorenz K. Ayers Trust, on its declaratory judgment claim to convert a grandchild's trust to a unitrust. Molk argued the court erred in considering certain evidence, that the unitrust election was contrary to the trust instrument and statute, and that an award of attorney's fees against her was improper. The appellate court affirmed the probate court's judgment, finding the evidence admissible, the unitrust conversion permissible, and the attorney's fee award justified. The court also granted U.S. Bank's motion for appellate attorney's fees and remanded for their determination.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","estate-probate","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=171556","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/us-bank-na-as-trustee-of-the-living-trust-agreement-of-lorenz-k-ayers-dat-108598","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98531:2021-01-12","opinionId":"515eb8e0-64cb-58a6-8b65-9f3eea0e214a","slug":"in-re-eric-f-kayira-respondent-c98531","caseName":"In re:  Eric F. Kayira, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC98531","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-01-12","year":2021,"display_summary":"Eric F. Kayira, an attorney, was found to have repeatedly failed to notify clients of received funds, engaged in a pattern of depleting client funds to pay other clients, and misappropriated client funds for personal and firm expenses over five years. In this original disciplinary proceeding, the disciplinary hearing panel recommended disbarment. The Missouri Supreme Court agreed with the panel's findings of misconduct and ordered Kayira disbarred, finding his mitigating factors insufficient to overcome the egregious nature of his actions, and rejecting his late claim of bipolar disorder.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","civil-procedure","estate-probate","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=171313","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-eric-f-kayira-respondent-c98531","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83124:2021-01-05","opinionId":"39281b6e-b28b-552c-9316-2149a9f5adcf","slug":"in-the-matter-of-margie-e-summers-lisa-summers-v-margie-summers-and-bonni-d83124","caseName":"In The Matter Of: Margie E. Summers;\nLisa Summers\nvs.\nMargie Summers and Bonnie Nims","caseNumber":"WD83124","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-01-05","year":2021,"display_summary":"Lisa Summers appealed the probate court's dismissal of her petition for guardianship and conservatorship of her mother, Margie Summers, and an award of attorney's fees. The appellate court determined that the motion to dismiss was converted to a motion for summary judgment because both parties submitted extrinsic evidence. The court reversed and remanded, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the validity of Margie's durable powers of attorney and the least restrictive means for her care, which precluded summary judgment.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=171033","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-margie-e-summers-lisa-summers-v-margie-summers-and-bonni-d83124","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108484:2020-12-22","opinionId":"053498f0-dd2c-546f-880c-55dcaab0449c","slug":"in-the-estate-of-john-fingal-allen-iii-aka-jack-allen-108484","caseName":"In the Estate of: John Fingal Allen, III a/k/a Jack Allen.","caseNumber":"ED108484","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-12-22","year":2020,"display_summary":"Yvonne Allen appealed three probate orders related to the administration of the estate of John Fingal Allen, III. The appellate court found that Allen's brief failed to comply with multiple mandatory requirements of Rule 84.04, including an inadequate statement of facts, deficient points relied on, and an insufficient argument section. Because the deficiencies prevented meaningful review without the court acting as an advocate, the appeal was dismissed.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=170677","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-john-fingal-allen-iii-aka-jack-allen-108484","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36795:2020-12-17","opinionId":"9ec13ea1-a8e3-52e6-bfa9-de2888064f2f","slug":"in-the-matter-of-peggy-gonsalves-an-incapacitated-and-disabled-person-d36795","caseName":"IN THE MATTER OF PEGGY GONSALVES, an incapacitated and disabled person","caseNumber":"SD36795","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-12-17","year":2020,"display_summary":"Steven obtained appointment as guardian and conservator for his mother, Peggy Gonsalves, over the objection of her grandchild, Arika, who had engaged in self-dealing under a power of attorney. Arika appealed the guardianship, raising several complaints but not challenging Peggy's incapacitation. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that under RSMo § 472.170.1, an appeal in such a case is limited to challenging the probate court's ruling on the person's incapacitation.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=170635","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-peggy-gonsalves-an-incapacitated-and-disabled-person-d36795","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83488:2020-12-15","opinionId":"6feef319-af49-53c4-8584-ef184bcea93e","slug":"dustin-meyer-v-carson-and-coil-and-harold-walther-d83488","caseName":"Dustin Meyer\nvs. \nCarson and Coil and Harold Walther","caseNumber":"WD83488","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-12-15","year":2020,"display_summary":"Dustin Meyer appealed the dismissal of his legal malpractice claims against a law firm, Carson & Coil, and an attorney, Harold Walther, concerning his grandmother's will and estate administration. The trial court dismissed the claims, finding Meyer lacked standing against Carson & Coil and failed to allege a duty or damages against Walther. The appellate court affirmed, concluding Meyer lacked standing as a beneficiary of the will and failed to establish an individual duty or damages from Walther's representation of the estate.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","estate-probate","negligence","appellate-procedure","trusts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=170473","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dustin-meyer-v-carson-and-coil-and-harold-walther-d83488","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36630:2020-11-30","opinionId":"3dec934e-fc9f-59a3-b714-e88a1bfa2aba","slug":"in-re-the-estate-of-virginia-alice-topping-frank-w-lampkin-executor-of-th-d36630","caseName":"IN RE THE ESTATE OF VIRGINIA ALICE TOPPING,\nFRANK W. LAMPKIN, Executor of the Last Will and Testament of Helen Lampkin, Respondent\nvs.\nSAM RYAN, ALEX RYAN and, LAURA RYAN, Appellants","caseNumber":"SD36630","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-11-30","year":2020,"display_summary":"Frank W. Lampkin, Executor, brought a discovery-of-assets case against Sam, Alex, and Laura Ryan, alleging the decedent lacked mental capacity when she named the Ryans as transfer-on-death beneficiaries of a large account, which depleted her estate. The jury found for Lampkin. On appeal, the Ryans challenged the exclusion of evidence regarding the decedent's estate plan and whether various beneficiaries received money. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the Ryans' points on appeal failed to comply with Rule 84.04(d) and they failed to make offers of proof. The court also concluded the excluded evidence was irrelevant to the decedent's mental capacity at the time of the beneficiary designation.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","evidence","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=169933","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-estate-of-virginia-alice-topping-frank-w-lampkin-executor-of-th-d36630","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83296:2020-07-21","opinionId":"fcef265a-4696-5a5d-8454-e1ed8a54a8e3","slug":"in-re-the-matter-of-annaliese-brightwell-trust-raymond-l-brightwell-v-bea-d83296","caseName":"IN RE THE MATTER OF: ANNALIESE BRIGHTWELL TRUST; RAYMOND L. BRIGHTWELL\nVS.\nBEATE BOESL","caseNumber":"WD83296","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-07-21","year":2020,"display_summary":"Raymond Brightwell appealed the trial court's summary judgment dismissing his registration of the Annaliese A. Brightwell Trust Agreement. Beate Boesl, the respondent, argued that later amended trusts revoked the original, making Raymond's registration invalid. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erroneously determined the validity of competing trust instruments as part of an administrative trust registration process, which is not designed for such contested issues. Furthermore, the court found that the determination was made without providing notice to all interested persons, as required for judicial proceedings involving trust administration.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","estate-probate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=162713","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-matter-of-annaliese-brightwell-trust-raymond-l-brightwell-v-bea-d83296","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd83184:2020-06-23","opinionId":"e61e07d8-0cce-5d70-99b7-78604f5dd549","slug":"marilyn-carmack-v-travis-carmack-and-temple-i-baxley-d83184","caseName":"Marilyn Carmack\nvs. \nTravis Carmack and Temple I. Baxley","caseNumber":"WD83184","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-06-23","year":2020,"display_summary":"Marilyn Carmack's husband died after changing the primary beneficiary of his Individual Retirement Account (IRA) from her to his siblings, Travis Carmack and Temple Baxley, shortly after Marilyn entered a long-term care facility. Marilyn sued, alleging the change was a gift in fraud of her marital rights under section 474.150.1. The trial court found in favor of Marilyn. On appeal, the Siblings argued that the statute does not apply to IRAs and that there was insufficient evidence of fraudulent intent. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that section 474.150.1 applies to IRAs and that substantial evidence supported the finding of fraudulent intent.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","standard-of-review","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","trusts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=160375","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/marilyn-carmack-v-travis-carmack-and-temple-i-baxley-d83184","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108357:2020-06-16","opinionId":"81575a61-fc09-5271-b3ea-93ca8ed02a24","slug":"in-the-estate-of-james-larry-washington-108357","caseName":"In the Estate of: James Larry Washington","caseNumber":"ED108357","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-06-16","year":2020,"display_summary":"David B. Washington, acting pro se as guardian and conservator for his brother, appealed the circuit court's judgment granting him partial fees for his services. Washington argued the court erred in the fee amount and denied him due process at a hearing. The appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the fee award, as the circuit court properly exercised its authority to determine reasonable compensation. It also found no due process violation, noting Washington's failure to provide a proper record on appeal and that pro se litigants are held to the same standards as attorneys.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=159797","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-james-larry-washington-108357","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82645:2020-06-09","opinionId":"d95850c3-dd82-53af-ba0f-d227d49d35f2","slug":"mignon-l-lambley-et-al-v-kim-l-diehl-trustee-et-al-d82645","caseName":"Mignon L. Lambley, Et Al., \nvs. \nKim L. Diehl, Trustee, Et Al.","caseNumber":"WD82645","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-06-09","year":2020,"display_summary":"Siblings Mignon Lambley and Sydney Burch sued their brother Kim Diehl, successor trustee of their parents' trusts, seeking his removal and financial restitution for his use of trust assets. Kim counterclaimed for quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and instructions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's findings for Kim on his unjust enrichment claim and the denial of prejudgment interest to Mignon and Sydney. However, the court reversed and remanded the quantum meruit claim, finding the trial court erred by not applying the presumption that family services are gratuitous in trust proceedings.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","estate-probate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","contracts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=159173","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/mignon-l-lambley-et-al-v-kim-l-diehl-trustee-et-al-d82645","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82873:2020-05-12","opinionId":"74a679aa-b996-5d1d-8ae3-00713e70b511","slug":"shirley-s-brown-v-stephen-l-smith-d82873","caseName":"Shirley S. Brown\nvs.\nStephen L. Smith","caseNumber":"WD82873","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-05-12","year":2020,"display_summary":"Stephen Smith appealed the circuit court's denial of his counterclaim for specific performance of an option agreement to purchase his sister's one-half interest in jointly held property. The circuit court found the agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration, concluding Smith's promise was illusory and that other conveyances could not serve as consideration. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the option agreement was supported by mutual promises and, alternatively, by the contemporaneously executed real estate conveyances as part of a single estate plan, making the agreement irrevocable.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","property-real-estate","estate-probate","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=160713","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/shirley-s-brown-v-stephen-l-smith-d82873","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed107988:2020-05-05","opinionId":"842aba7c-e0a5-5a9c-ba8d-6811a60f729f","slug":"paul-arthaud-respondent-v-gordon-arthaud-et-al-appellants-107988","caseName":"Paul Arthaud, Respondent, vs. Gordon Arthaud, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED107988","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-05-05","year":2020,"display_summary":"Paul Arthaud filed an action against Gordon Arthaud (\"Dean\") and Gordon Arthaud, II, concerning the Gordon Arthaud Revocable Trust, disputing beneficiary status, annual distributions, and trustee removal. The trial court found Paul and Dean were primary beneficiaries entitled to annual distributions and ordered the division of trust assets into individual GST Exempt Trusts, with Paul and Dean serving as sole trustees of their respective trusts. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's interpretation of the trust regarding beneficiaries and trustee roles, but remanded the case for correction of the judgment regarding annual distributions to ensure prior distributions are accounted for within the 5% annual limit.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","estate-probate","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=155915","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/paul-arthaud-respondent-v-gordon-arthaud-et-al-appellants-107988","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed108125:2020-04-21","opinionId":"db9a6225-27d4-5a98-a697-deb30a00cb4f","slug":"charla-ann-broughton-et-al-appellants-v-estate-of-anna-lois-tyner-et-al-r-108125","caseName":"Charla Ann Broughton, et al., Appellants, vs. Estate of Anna Lois Tyner, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED108125","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2020-04-21","year":2020,"display_summary":"Charla Ann Broughton and others (Appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Dennis Lynn Tyner and the Estate of Anna Lois Tyner (Respondents). Appellants had contested their mother's will, alleging Dennis exerted undue influence over the Testatrix. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the undue influence claim, making summary judgment inappropriate. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","evidence"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=155019","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/charla-ann-broughton-et-al-appellants-v-estate-of-anna-lois-tyner-et-al-r-108125","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd82522:2020-01-07","opinionId":"6f3d8ced-0ed1-5796-a4b9-ab08972563dd","slug":"in-the-matter-of-selma-mcdonald-norton-a-person-allegedly-incapacitated-a-d82522","caseName":"In the Matter of Selma McDonald Norton, A Person Allegedly Incapacitated and Disabled\nvs.\nRichard C. McDonald and Louise Piccard Dorr","caseNumber":"WD82522","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2020-01-07","year":2020,"display_summary":"Richard C. McDonald and Louise Piccard Dorr, referred to as Children, appealed the summary judgment granted in favor of their mother, Selma McDonald Norton, in a guardianship and conservatorship proceeding. Children had sought appointment of a guardian and conservator for Ms. Norton, alleging she was incapacitated and disabled. During the pendency of the appeal, Ms. Norton passed away. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that Ms. Norton's death rendered the issues moot, as a decision on the merits would have no practical effect or provide effective relief.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","estate-probate","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=148153","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-selma-mcdonald-norton-a-person-allegedly-incapacitated-a-d82522","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd36226:2019-12-06","opinionId":"e0740315-2ab8-5479-93fc-60a2fcfd8dc7","slug":"boyd-a-pennington-individually-and-as-successor-trustee-of-the-james-w-gr-d36226","caseName":"BOYD A. PENNINGTON, individually and as Successor Trustee of the JAMES W. GRESHAM LIVING TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellant\nvs.\nSAIDEE ANN VONIER, individually, and as Trustee of the JAMES W. GRESHAM LIVING TRUST, Defendant-Responden","caseNumber":"SD36226","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-12-06","year":2019,"display_summary":"Boyd A. Pennington appealed the trial court's judgment, after a bench trial, regarding the James W. Gresham Living Trust. Pennington, Gresham's stepson and a contingent beneficiary, sought to prevent Saidee Ann Vonier, Gresham's wife and successor trustee, from selling trust real estate or to mandate a deed reflecting his remainder interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in Pennington's arguments that Vonier's roles merged to limit her interest to a life estate or that she lacked authority to amend the trust and distribute assets to herself.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","estate-probate","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=147093","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/boyd-a-pennington-individually-and-as-successor-trustee-of-the-james-w-gr-d36226","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":24,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc97812:2019-11-19","opinionId":"af5b6dd5-f83b-55ba-804e-82fda2ff0c7f","slug":"theron-ingram-respondent-v-brook-chateau-appellant-c97812","caseName":"Theron Ingram, Respondent, vs. Brook Chateau, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SC97812","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2019-11-19","year":2019,"display_summary":"Theron Ingram, a quadriplegic, was admitted to Brook Chateau, a residential care facility, where his agent, Andrea Nicole Hall, signed a voluntary arbitration agreement on his behalf using a Durable Power of Attorney (DPOA). Ingram later sued Brook Chateau for negligence, and Brook Chateau moved to compel arbitration. The circuit court overruled the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Missouri reversed, holding that the DPOA's grant of \"full authority\" to move Ingram into a facility included the incidental authority to sign the arbitration agreement, even if voluntary.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=146534","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/theron-ingram-respondent-v-brook-chateau-appellant-c97812","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed106880:2019-11-05","opinionId":"d8317585-5a7d-5c73-80eb-e361e9459e21","slug":"in-the-matter-of-tr-potter-jr-exempt-trust-fbo-john-m-potter-106880","caseName":"In the Matter of: T.R. Potter, Jr. Exempt Trust FBO John M. Potter","caseNumber":"ED106880","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-11-05","year":2019,"display_summary":"David Oetting, co-trustee of the T.R. Potter, Jr. Exempt Trust, appealed a probate court judgment interpreting the trust, finding no breach of fiduciary duty by U.S. Bank, removing Oetting as co-trustee, and awarding attorney's fees. The appellate court reversed the probate court's interpretation, holding that trustees have discretion to request a beneficiary's financial information for income distributions, and consequently reversed the attorney's fees award. However, the court affirmed the finding that U.S. Bank did not breach its fiduciary duty and upheld Oetting's removal as co-trustee due to his failure to administer the trust effectively and hostility with other parties.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=147433","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-tr-potter-jr-exempt-trust-fbo-john-m-potter-106880","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35908:2019-11-04","opinionId":"552f5d15-3bdd-5d83-b62d-fe89af0285ce","slug":"cynthia-c-harris-appellant-v-alice-davis-as-personal-representative-of-th-d35908","caseName":"CYNTHIA C. HARRIS, Appellant\nvs.\nALICE DAVIS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Melvin Harris, Deceased, CHASITY L. BOETTCHER, JANE M. McKNIGHT, \nKIMMIE L. HENSON, SALLY A. CARROLL, MELVIN L. HARRIS, and MARY S. KINNARD, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD35908","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-11-04","year":2019,"display_summary":"Cynthia Harris appealed a probate judgment and order directing the distribution of estate property, raising several objections. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the appointment of the personal representative or the consideration of the abandonment defense against Harris's surviving-spouse claims. The court also rejected Harris's arguments regarding abatement and the final settlement filings, concluding that she failed to preserve certain claims or demonstrate prejudice.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=146160","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cynthia-c-harris-appellant-v-alice-davis-as-personal-representative-of-th-d35908","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35905:2019-07-19","opinionId":"efe2b56c-816e-57fa-92a9-3b004d4aab03","slug":"cynthia-harris-plaintiff-appellant-v-anna-mae-edgar-et-al-defendants-resp-d35905","caseName":"CYNTHIA HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nANNA MAE EDGAR, et al., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD35905","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2019-07-19","year":2019,"display_summary":"Cynthia Harris appealed the circuit court's dismissal of her civil action against Anna Mae Edgar and other heirs, in which she alleged her deceased husband fraudulently conveyed land in derogation of her marital rights. The circuit court dismissed the case without prejudice, applying the doctrine of abatement because a prior probate proceeding involving the same estate and property was already pending. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the abatement defense was not waived, the probate proceeding had exclusive jurisdiction, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing rather than consolidating the cases.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=142553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cynthia-harris-plaintiff-appellant-v-anna-mae-edgar-et-al-defendants-resp-d35905","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:parent-139135","opinionId":"d2f8b03e-8df9-5cb7-8365-c15681e79b71","slug":"in-the-matter-of-virgil-d-williams-janet-rosenauer-andrew-county-public-a-d81613","caseName":"In the Matter of Virgil D. Williams;\nJanet Rosenauer, Andrew County Public Administrator, as his Guardian and Conservator\nvs.\nBetty Lou Williams","caseNumber":"WD81613","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-04-16","year":2019,"display_summary":"Betty Williams appealed the circuit court's denial of her motion to remove the public administrator as guardian and conservator for her husband, Virgil Williams, and to appoint herself and her daughter. She also appealed the court's decision to allow the public administrator to collect attorney fees from Virgil's estate. The appellate court affirmed both judgments, finding no error in the circuit court's decision to keep the public administrator in her role or in the award of attorney fees.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=139135","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-virgil-d-williams-janet-rosenauer-andrew-county-public-a-d81613","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81524:2019-03-26","opinionId":"c75d7912-a47b-5b97-b9b5-b97eb511be57","slug":"in-the-estate-of-lawrence-david-schneider-incapacitateddisabled-carol-hin-d81524","caseName":"In the Estate of Lawrence David Schneider, Incapacitated/Disabled;\nCarol Hinchie\nvs.\nRobert Schneider","caseNumber":"WD81524","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-03-26","year":2019,"display_summary":"Robert Schneider appealed the probate court's decision to remove him as guardian and conservator for his mentally disabled adult son, Larry, and to appoint Carol Hinchie, Larry's sister, as successor. Robert argued Carol lacked standing and that there was insufficient evidence for his removal. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the probate court acted on its own motion and the guardian ad litem's recommendation, not solely on Carol's motion, thus rendering the standing argument moot. The court also found substantial evidence supported Robert's removal due to his failure to discharge statutory duties and act in Larry's best interests.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=138315","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-lawrence-david-schneider-incapacitateddisabled-carol-hin-d81524","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81006:2019-01-22","opinionId":"6a18846b-4463-5e84-9d9e-68d129c18938","slug":"blackwood-langworthy-tyson-llc-v-jon-d-knipp-et-al-d81006","caseName":"Blackwood, Langworthy & Tyson, LLC\nvs.\nJon D. Knipp, et al","caseNumber":"WD81006","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-01-22","year":2019,"display_summary":"Blackwood, Langworthy & Tyson, L.C. (Appellant) appealed the circuit court's grant of judgment on the pleadings, which dismissed its Petition for Accounting against Jon D. Knipp and Linda Miller (Respondents). Appellant sought to recover assets for professional services rendered to a conservatorship, arguing it was a \"qualified claimant\" under Section 461.300. The appellate court reversed, holding that Appellant's claim survived the conservatorship's closing, making it a \"creditor\" with standing, and that it did not waive its claim by accepting partial payment in the conservatorship's final settlement. The court also found Appellant's petition adequately stated a cause of action.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=135853","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/blackwood-langworthy-tyson-llc-v-jon-d-knipp-et-al-d81006","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc97207:2019-01-15","opinionId":"cb6c49d2-fbc8-5655-9bfd-00dd5385ca98","slug":"in-re-r-scott-gardner-respondent-c97207","caseName":"In Re:  R. Scott Gardner, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC97207","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2019-01-15","year":2019,"display_summary":"In an original disciplinary proceeding, the Supreme Court of Missouri considered attorney R. Scott Gardner's conduct as a personal representative who paid himself fees without prior court approval and in violation of a court order. The Court found Gardner violated multiple rules of professional conduct, including failing to safekeep client property and making false statements to a tribunal. Despite finding his conduct merited suspension, the Court imposed an indefinite suspension with no leave to reapply for six months, but stayed the suspension and placed him on probation for one year, citing mitigating factors such as the absence of dishonest motive and no harm to the estate.","primaryTopic":"other","topicSlugs":["other","estate-probate","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=135699","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-r-scott-gardner-respondent-c97207","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81595:2018-10-23","opinionId":"8d2acb48-d592-5088-baa3-96442d35a68c","slug":"daniel-allen-atkinson-et-al-v-sheryl-ann-firuccia-et-al-d81595","caseName":"Daniel Allen Atkinson, et al\nvs.\nSheryl Ann Firuccia, et al","caseNumber":"WD81595","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-10-23","year":2018,"display_summary":"Daniel and Bobby Atkinson challenged the probate division's rejection of one of four purported last wills and testaments of Bertha Don Carlos. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Mrs. Don Carlos's adopted daughter, Sheryl Firuccia, holding that the Atkinsons' claims were barred by res judicata based on a judgment entered in an earlier will contest that found Mrs. Don Carlos died intestate. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the subsequent will contest was an impermissible collateral attack on the final judgment of intestacy from the prior litigation.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","summary-judgment","estate-probate","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=132338","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/daniel-allen-atkinson-et-al-v-sheryl-ann-firuccia-et-al-d81595","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35145:2018-10-18","opinionId":"d82ec7f8-8f34-5337-98d0-4a655566d36c","slug":"estate-of-donny-elder-charlotte-bourbon-guardian-and-conservator-petition-d35145","caseName":"ESTATE OF DONNY ELDER, CHARLOTTE BOURBON, Guardian and Conservator, Petitioner-Respondent\nvs.\nESTATE OF ELIZABETH P. PAGELER, RANDY W. WEDEL, Personal Representative, DAVID WAYNE WEDEL, and RONALD JOE WEDEL, Respondents-Appellants","caseNumber":"SD35145","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-10-18","year":2018,"display_summary":"Appellants, heirs of Elizabeth P. Pageler's estate, appealed the trial court's judgment declaring that Pageler's estate had no interest in certain property, arguing it was held as tenants in common rather than by the entirety. The trial court found that Donny Elder, as Pageler's surviving spouse, became the sole owner as a surviving tenant by the entireties. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the appellants' arguments were based on factual inferences regarding intent that were implicitly rejected by the trial court, and the appellate court defers to the trial court's assessment of contested evidence.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","contracts","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=132273","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/estate-of-donny-elder-charlotte-bourbon-guardian-and-conservator-petition-d35145","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35307:2018-10-09","opinionId":"33d8cf4a-0dee-584d-a270-7eed0e903d7c","slug":"first-national-bank-respondent-v-shirla-howard-revocable-living-trust-res-d35307","caseName":"FIRST NATIONAL BANK, Respondent,\nvs.\nSHIRLA HOWARD REVOCABLE\nLIVING TRUST, Respondent,\nand\nJERRY HOWARD, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SD35307","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-10-09","year":2018,"display_summary":"Jerry Howard appealed a summary judgment granted to the Shirla Howard Revocable Living Trust concerning the ownership of a bank account. Jerry claimed ownership as a pay-on-death beneficiary, while the Trust asserted Shirla had transferred the account to the Trust. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case, holding that the summary judgment record did not establish the Trust's right to judgment as a matter of law due to inadmissible hearsay and unauthenticated evidence.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","summary-judgment","evidence","estate-probate","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=131826","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/first-national-bank-respondent-v-shirla-howard-revocable-living-trust-res-d35307","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":18,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81466:2018-10-09","opinionId":"97ae7c8d-7384-5b13-b160-3551f4c194a2","slug":"sheryl-l-hallam-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-joe-bell-v-misso-d81466","caseName":"Sheryl L. Hallam, Personal Representative of the Estate of Joe Bell\nvs.\nMissouri Department of Social Services, Family Support Division","caseNumber":"WD81466","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-10-09","year":2018,"display_summary":"Sheryl L. Hallam, as personal representative of Joe Bell's estate, appealed a decision by the Director of the Family Support Division denying Mr. Bell Vendor level MO HealthNet benefits and imposing a $607,000 transferred property penalty. The denial stemmed from Mrs. Bell's transfer of their homestead into a revocable trust, effective upon her death, which then distributed assets to her children. The appellate court affirmed the Director's order, concluding that transfers on death qualify as a disposition of assets under federal Medicaid law, and that a spouse's asset transfer can cause a penalty for the other spouse.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","trusts","other","estate-probate","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=132295","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/sheryl-l-hallam-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-joe-bell-v-misso-d81466","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35150:2018-09-11","opinionId":"27a7ed62-5310-5f6c-a3ec-69989eff08f2","slug":"in-the-matter-of-the-betty-j-killian-revocable-trust-joseph-p-killian-pet-d35150","caseName":"In the Matter of\nthe Betty J. Killian Revocable Trust\nJOSEPH P. KILLIAN, Petitioner-Appellant,\nvs.\nWILLIAM KILLIAN, Individually and as\nCo-Trustee of the Betty J. Killian Revocable Trust,\nand\nTRUST COMPANY OF THE OZARKS,\nCo-Trustee of the Betty J. Killian Revocable Trust, Respondents-Respondents.","caseNumber":"SD35150","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-09-11","year":2018,"display_summary":"Joseph P. Killian appealed the trial court's denial of his petition to reform the Betty J. Killian Revocable Trust. Joe alleged that his mother, Betty, amended her trust to disinherit him based on a mistaken belief that he never paid his late father for a business interest. Following a bench trial, the trial court found Joe failed to prove this mistake by clear and convincing evidence. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the trial court's factual finding was not against the weight of the evidence, as credibility was at issue and the evidence allowed for competing reasonable inferences.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","standard-of-review","civil-procedure","evidence","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=130435","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-the-betty-j-killian-revocable-trust-joseph-p-killian-pet-d35150","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd81185:2018-08-14","opinionId":"54be85fe-bcd4-5c63-914f-6e410b030d46","slug":"the-finkle-rowlett-revocable-trust-dated-august-28-2009-v-greg-stiens-d81185","caseName":"The Finkle-Rowlett Revocable Trust Dated August 28, 2009\nvs.\nGreg Stiens","caseNumber":"WD81185","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2018-08-14","year":2018,"display_summary":"Greg Stiens, a beneficiary of the Finkle-Rowlett Revocable Trust, challenged the validity of the Trust's Second Amendment, alleging the settlor lacked testamentary capacity. The probate court found Stiens violated a no-contest clause by pursuing his challenge, forfeited his interest, and thus lacked standing to proceed, dismissing his claims. The appellate court reversed, holding that the probate court erred by assuming the validity of the Second Amendment and its no-contest clause without first resolving the issue of the settlor's testamentary capacity.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=129035","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/the-finkle-rowlett-revocable-trust-dated-august-28-2009-v-greg-stiens-d81185","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:parent-125184","opinionId":"87c9b968-069c-5910-b5fe-3e4684400242","slug":"in-the-matter-of-sharren-k-smith-appellant-105745","caseName":"In the Matter of:  Sharren K. Smith, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED105745","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-05-01","year":2018,"display_summary":"Casper Machino, conservator of Sharren K. Smith's estate, appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate several interlocutory probate orders concerning waste and attorney's fees. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that interlocutory probate orders appealable under Section 472.160 are final upon entry, and the ten-day appeal period runs from the date of those orders, not from a later motion to vacate or reconsider them.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","estate-probate","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=125184","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-sharren-k-smith-appellant-105745","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35007:2018-04-23","opinionId":"32ad5c9e-e281-5dc4-9410-424aab5e009b","slug":"in-the-estate-of-matthew-mcwilliams-deceased-estate-of-matthew-mcwilliams-d35007","caseName":"IN THE ESTATE OF:\nMATTHEW McWILLIAMS, DECEASED,\nESTATE OF MATTHEW McWILLIAMS\nby and through its duly appointed\nPersonal Representative, Bridget Garner,\nand by the designated Resident Agent for\nPersonal Representative, Susan Bell, Respondents,\nvs.\nLISA A. MAYER, Interested Party, Appellant.","caseNumber":"SD35007","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-04-23","year":2018,"display_summary":"Matthew McWilliams acquired a bass boat, motor, and two trailers, all titled in his name with his then-wife Lisa as transfer-on-death (TOD) beneficiary. After their marriage dissolved, Matthew did not re-title the assets or change the beneficiary designations. Upon Matthew's death intestate, Lisa claimed the assets based on the TOD provisions, but the probate division ruled in favor of the estate. The appellate court affirmed, holding that spousal-beneficiary designations on Department of Revenue title certificates are ineffective after marriage dissolution due to § 461.051.1 RSMo.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","family-law","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=124993","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-matthew-mcwilliams-deceased-estate-of-matthew-mcwilliams-d35007","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed105785:2018-04-10","opinionId":"2bcd14b7-7c39-56a8-bdc0-50fe7f89773a","slug":"dennis-l-presson-and-theresa-melton-appellants-v-bridget-a-presson-respon-105785","caseName":"Dennis L. Presson and Theresa Melton, Appellants, vs. Bridget A. Presson, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED105785","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2018-04-10","year":2018,"display_summary":"Dennis L. Presson and Theresa Melton appealed the dismissal of their petition against Bridget A. Presson, Decedent's wife, seeking compensation for services rendered on real estate. Appellants argued their claims were not compulsory counterclaims and were not barred by statute. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Appellants' claims for unjust enrichment were compulsory counterclaims that should have been raised in prior litigation concerning the property's ownership, and that these claims were mature when responsive pleadings were due in the initial case.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","property-real-estate","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=124526","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/dennis-l-presson-and-theresa-melton-appellants-v-bridget-a-presson-respon-105785","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd35117:2018-04-05","opinionId":"1bc4e1fe-e6fe-5fca-91f2-8ae20ada8aef","slug":"in-the-matter-of-ronald-w-gurgel-respondent-d35117","caseName":"In the Matter of:\nRONALD W. GURGEL, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SD35117","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2018-04-05","year":2018,"display_summary":"June Anteski (Daughter) filed a petition to be appointed guardian and conservator for her father, Ronald W. Gurgel (Father). After a joint dismissal of all claims, the probate court awarded attorney fees to Father's court-appointed attorney, taxing them as costs against Daughter. Daughter appealed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction after dismissal, improperly applied a statute for fees, and erred in declaring the fees nondischargeable in bankruptcy. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that statutory exceptions allowed the court to award fees as costs despite the dismissal, and declined to rule on the bankruptcy dischargeability as premature.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=124451","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-ronald-w-gurgel-respondent-d35117","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87482:undated","opinionId":"bdc3889d-a0a4-5249-aec3-6b5f8e11247f","slug":"cary-shippert-v-terry-shippert-et-al-d87482","caseName":"Cary Shippert\nvs. \nTerry Shippert, et al.","caseNumber":"WD87482","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Cary Shippert challenged his mother's trust, alleging incapacity and undue influence, but the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding Cary lacked standing. The court reasoned that a provision in the decedent's will incorporated the trust's terms, ensuring Cary would receive the same distribution even if the trust was invalidated. On appeal, Cary argued this ruling erred under statutory lapse provisions and public policy. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that because Cary did not contest the will, its binding provisions meant he had no legally protectable interest at stake in challenging the trust.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","estate-probate","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221316","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/cary-shippert-v-terry-shippert-et-al-d87482","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87348:undated","opinionId":"91772e4e-6a4d-57cf-834f-1ffbd31f29fe","slug":"in-the-estate-of-betty-l-shippert-deceased-terry-g-shippert-personal-repr-d87348","caseName":"In the Estate of: Betty L. Shippert, Deceased\nTerry G. Shippert, Personal Representative\nvs. \nCary Shippert, Shari D. Pitts, Sarah E. Lawrence, and Bryon E. Shippert","caseNumber":"WD87348","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Terry G. Shippert, personal representative of Betty L. Shippert's estate, appealed the probate court's order reopening the estate and denying his request for attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the probate court's judgment, holding that a petition to remove a personal representative constitutes a 'proceeding' under § 473.840.6, thus preventing automatic discharge and closure of the estate. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Terry's attorney's fees, as they were incurred for his personal benefit rather than the estate's. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221314","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-betty-l-shippert-deceased-terry-g-shippert-personal-repr-d87348","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113234:undated","opinionId":"3a4c8f9e-4dc7-5e14-b6c8-d87e5b2395f9","slug":"estate-of-etsuko-toguri-by-and-through-its-trustee-and-executor-kathleen-113234","caseName":"Estate of Etsuko Toguri, by and through its trustee and executor, Kathleen Miki Toguri, Appellant/Cross-Respondent, v. Estate of Osvaldo Pierotti, by and through its personal representative, Anna Marie Pierotti and Anna Marie Pierotti, an individual, Respondent/Cross-Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED113234","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2026,"display_summary":"The Estate of Etsuko Toguri sought to satisfy a California judgment against the Estate of Osvaldo Pierotti from three Missouri bank accounts held jointly by Osvaldo and his wife, Anna Marie. The trial court granted partial relief, applying California law to classify the accounts as community property and allowing recovery of one-half of their value. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that Missouri law governed the accounts, which were properly designated as joint tenants with right of survivorship, and that the Toguri Estate could reach all funds contributed by Osvaldo. The case was remanded for modification of the judgment.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","contracts","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=231433","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/estate-of-etsuko-toguri-by-and-through-its-trustee-and-executor-kathleen-113234","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86231:undated","opinionId":"ce33fe65-d3b7-5fc5-8c9c-4244852f68ca","slug":"in-the-matter-of-isaiah-boydston-v-lorene-boydston-carla-drummond-and-sha-d86231","caseName":"In the Matter of Isaiah Boydston\nvs.\nLorene Boydston; Carla Drummond; and Shanna Burns, Public Administrator","caseNumber":"WD86231","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"Isaiah Boydston, an incapacitated adult, appealed the circuit court's judgment denying his petition to appoint his paternal grandmother as his successor guardian and conservator, seeking to replace the Public Administrator. Boydston argued that the circuit court erroneously denied his petition by implying he lacked authority to file it and that the judgment was not supported by substantial evidence and was against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment, holding that Boydston had the right to file the petition, but the circuit court properly addressed it on the merits and found substantial evidence to support retaining the Public Administrator as guardian and conservator.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","appellate-procedure","family-law","standard-of-review","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=211483","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-isaiah-boydston-v-lorene-boydston-carla-drummond-and-sha-d86231","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed113220:undated","opinionId":"39331cf8-85fc-510a-a91a-3dcb874e1f3a","slug":"anita-m-beckmann-appellant-v-mary-k-wilson-et-al-respondents-113220","caseName":"Anita M. Beckmann, Appellant, v. Mary K. Wilson, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED113220","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Anita Beckmann appealed a circuit court judgment that disinherited her from her mother's trust for violating a no-contest clause. The appellate court determined it lacked jurisdiction because the circuit court's judgment was not final. The judgment failed to dispose of counterclaims filed by Elizabeth and Christopher Baudler for slander of title, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Wilson's motion for attorney's fees was denied.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","trusts","estate-probate"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226993","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/anita-m-beckmann-appellant-v-mary-k-wilson-et-al-respondents-113220","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappd:ed112991:undated","opinionId":"f9a8848d-4bdf-597e-9bed-5fa594de453b","slug":"in-the-estate-of-anna-lois-tyner-deceased-112991","caseName":"In the Estate of:  Anna Lois Tyner, Deceased.","caseNumber":"ED112991","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Dennis Lynn Tyner appealed the probate court's order striking his proposed order to lift a stay, which he claimed prevented him from exercising an option to purchase real property from his deceased mother's will. The appellate court affirmed the probate court's judgment, holding that the stay expired at the conclusion of a prior will contest proceeding, not a later attorney's fee appeal. Consequently, Dennis failed to timely exercise his purchase option within the one-year period specified in the will, and his arguments for estoppel, impossibility, and frustration of purpose were inapplicable due to lack of evidentiary support.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=226794","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-estate-of-anna-lois-tyner-deceased-112991","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"employment","label":"Employment Law","href":"/practice-areas/employment","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/employment"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38425:undated","opinionId":"42e6ad33-2ccf-52fe-805a-39d31ca4763c","slug":"in-the-matter-of-shirley-mae-butler-incdsb-gregory-lee-petitioner-appella-d38425","caseName":"IN THE MATTER OF: SHIRLEY MAE BUTLER, INC/DSB, GREGORY LEE, Petitioner-Appellant\nv.\nKIMBERLY CLARK, Respondent-Respondent, LORETTA ROUSE and REBECCA ALLEN, Intervenors-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38425","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Gregory Lee appealed orders approving the final settlement and discharge of conservator Loretta Rouse, and challenged an earlier judgment appointing a guardian and conservator for his mother, Shirley Butler. Lee argued the initial judgment was void due to due process violations and that the final settlement was void for lack of a hearing on his objections and non-compliance with statutory receipt requirements. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Lee's appeal of the initial judgment was untimely and he lacked standing to assert his mother's due process rights. The court further found no statutory requirement for a hearing on final settlement objections and that the discharge receipt requirements were satisfied.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227194","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-shirley-mae-butler-incdsb-gregory-lee-petitioner-appella-d38425","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86831:undated","opinionId":"6fd2a79a-1788-5dfb-9c5b-39eda6a82c8a","slug":"in-the-matter-of-jennifer-kinard-v-alexa-summit-d86831","caseName":"In the Matter of: Jennifer Kinard\nvs.\nAlexa Summit","caseNumber":"WD86831","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Jennifer Kinard, a ward with multiple disabilities and a guardian, appealed the probate court's judgment disqualifying her private counsel and dismissing her petition to remove the Public Administrator as her guardian. The probate court had ruled that Kinard, being totally incapacitated, was incapable of hiring counsel, and thus her petition was unauthorized. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding the probate court abused its discretion in disqualifying counsel without evidence Kinard actually hired them, and consequently erred in dismissing her petition.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reinstated","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=216534","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-jennifer-kinard-v-alexa-summit-d86831","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86824:undated","opinionId":"f3ae0939-8087-58dc-875a-4535ab862e1a","slug":"in-re-the-estate-of-patricia-mcdow-decedent-gray-birdsong-v-the-callaway-d86824","caseName":"In Re the Estate of Patricia McDow, Decedent, Gray Birdsong\nvs.\nThe Callaway Bank","caseNumber":"WD86824","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"The Estate of Patricia McDow appealed the denial of its petition for discovery of assets against The Callaway Bank, seeking payment for two certificates of deposit (CDs). The Estate argued the trial court erred by misapplying the law regarding automatic renewal of CDs and by issuing a judgment against the weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that both CDs had been previously redeemed by the Decedent.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215516","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-estate-of-patricia-mcdow-decedent-gray-birdsong-v-the-callaway-d86824","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"personal-injury","label":"Personal Injury","href":"/practice-areas/personal-injury","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/personal-injury"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86359:undated","opinionId":"7cecf878-db54-5134-9417-5f58ec34630f","slug":"rebecca-lynn-larson-et-al-v-alvin-winkler-et-al-kevin-goucher-and-alisa-g-d86359","caseName":"Rebecca Lynn Larson, Et al.\nvs.\nAlvin Winkler Et al.; Kevin Goucher and Alisa Goucher","caseNumber":"WD86359","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"Kevin and Alisa Goucher appealed an interlocutory judgment concerning the Mary Ellen Brown Revocable Trust. The trial court held that Kevin Goucher's contingent beneficiary interest in a deceased relative's share divested because the Trust's asset (a farm) was not sold within a \"reasonable period of time\" after the primary beneficiary turned sixty-five, causing the primary beneficiary's interest to vest. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court erroneously interpreted the Trust's plain language. It held that Goucher's contingent interest vested upon the primary beneficiary's death without issue and before the farm's distribution, and directed the Trustee to distribute the share to Goucher.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","estate-probate","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"reversed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208376","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/rebecca-lynn-larson-et-al-v-alvin-winkler-et-al-kevin-goucher-and-alisa-g-d86359","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd86056:undated","opinionId":"63ef679d-b8b0-5123-b91c-79c77a7649de","slug":"michael-grabb-v-teresa-lurinda-grabb-aka-terry-grabb-and-amanda-huffman-p-d86056","caseName":"Michael Grabb\nvs.\nTeresa Lurinda Grabb a/k/a Terry Grabb and Amanda Huffman, Public Administrator for Morgan County, Missouri, Personal Representative of the Estate of Ronald E. Grabb","caseNumber":"WD86056","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"Michael Grabb, the son of Ronald Grabb, appealed the trial court's judgment awarding his father's IRA proceeds to Teresa Grabb, the father's ex-wife, as a non-probate asset. The son argued that the ex-wife's beneficiary designation was automatically revoked upon divorce under Missouri statute § 461.051.1. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the IRA's custodial agreement contained an express provision, permitted by § 461.051.2, stating that divorce would not automatically revoke beneficiary designations, and this provision was properly considered by the trial court.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","family-law","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=207414","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-grabb-v-teresa-lurinda-grabb-aka-terry-grabb-and-amanda-huffman-p-d86056","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":36,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/family"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"moappwd:wd87791:undated","opinionId":"11dd5b03-f751-5c37-8c9a-678d5ffaafc3","slug":"brooke-e-harris-v-john-killian-public-administrator-as-personal-represent-d87791","caseName":"Brooke E. Harris\nvs.\nJohn Killian, Public Administrator as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gary Tauvar","caseNumber":"WD87791","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Brooke E. Harris, an attorney, appealed from a probate court judgment that partially denied her application for attorney's compensation and reimbursement for real estate tax payments from the Estate of Gary Tauvar. Harris argued the Estate was bound by a contingent fee contract signed by the personal representative in his individual capacity, that the awarded compensation was inadequate, and that the firm was entitled to reimbursement for advanced real estate taxes. The appellate court affirmed the probate court's judgment, holding that the Estate was not bound by the contract without court approval, the compensation was within the probate court's discretion, and the tax payment was not a reimbursable expense without a court order for the personal representative to take charge of the property.","primaryTopic":"estate-probate","topicSlugs":["estate-probate","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=228274","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/brooke-e-harris-v-john-killian-public-administrator-as-personal-represent-d87791","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":24,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":16,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]}]}