{"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 Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official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":"trusts","label":"Trusts","description":null,"totalCases":58,"relatedPracticeAreas":[]},"trend":[{"year":2018,"count":4},{"year":2019,"count":7},{"year":2020,"count":8},{"year":2021,"count":11},{"year":2022,"count":8},{"year":2023,"count":7},{"year":2024,"count":7},{"year":2025,"count":6}],"cases":[{"caseId":"moappd:ed112961:2025-06-10","opinionId":"7745a6ab-228e-51cd-aa15-bcff425075d2","slug":"aaron-russell-roesch-appellant-v-brittany-leigh-sheffer-and-peace-love-so-112961","caseName":"Aaron Russell Roesch, Appellant, vs. Brittany Leigh Sheffer and Peace, Love, Sold, L.L.C., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED112961","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-06-10","year":2025,"display_summary":"Aaron Roesch sued Brittany Sheffer and Peace, Love, Sold, LLC, seeking to enforce an oral agreement for the sale of real property through a constructive trust. Roesch alleged Sheffer agreed to purchase a property for his benefit and then sell it to him, but later demanded a significantly higher price. The trial court dismissed Roesch's petition, citing the statute of frauds and failure to state a claim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Roesch failed to adequately plead a constructive trust claim because he did not allege Sheffer accepted his tendered payment, which is necessary to establish unjust enrichment.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","trusts","contracts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=221236","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/aaron-russell-roesch-appellant-v-brittany-leigh-sheffer-and-peace-love-so-112961","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":"moappd:ed112335:2025-03-04","opinionId":"89ac8160-570b-5197-ac27-e9b05fb2a418","slug":"melissa-m-carter-respondent-v-drew-b-carter-appellant-112335","caseName":"Melissa M. Carter, Respondent, vs. Drew B. Carter, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED112335","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2025-03-04","year":2025,"display_summary":"Drew B. Carter (Husband) appealed the dissolution of marriage judgment, challenging the calculation of spousal maintenance, imputation of his income for child support, the order to pay private school tuition, and the characterization of a trust account as marital property. The appellate court reversed the trial court's calculation of Wife's net income for maintenance, agreeing that it was incorrectly reduced by itemized deductions and a child tax credit. However, the court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding Husband's imputed income, the private school tuition order, and the classification of the trust account as marital property. The case was remanded for recalculation of maintenance and child support consistent with the corrected income.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","child-custody","civil-procedure","trusts"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=218056","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/melissa-m-carter-respondent-v-drew-b-carter-appellant-112335","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"family","label":"Family Law","href":"/practice-areas/family","score":38,"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: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":"moappsd:sd38065:2024-06-06","opinionId":"7262010e-90a0-51c3-b710-7d42e5e821a9","slug":"jerry-keith-baker-individually-and-as-successor-co-trustee-appellants-v-m-d38065","caseName":"JERRY KEITH BAKER, individually and as successor co-trustee, Appellants\nvs.\nMICHAEL DENNIS BAKER, individually and as successor co-trustee, and DEVIN BAKER, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD38065","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2024-06-06","year":2024,"display_summary":"Jerry Keith Baker, individually and as successor co-trustee, appealed the trial court's judgment in a dispute over trust assets. He argued the trial court erred by excluding evidence of statements made by Jerry D. Baker about cash in a safe and by dismissing Yvonne Suzette Peters as a necessary party, violating her due process rights. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no prejudice from the excluded evidence as it was cumulative, and that Keith lacked standing to raise Suzette's due process claim, while his necessary party argument was unpreserved.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","evidence","appellate-procedure","trusts","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=208833","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/jerry-keith-baker-individually-and-as-successor-co-trustee-appellants-v-m-d38065","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: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: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:wd85899:2023-12-19","opinionId":"6821ab9c-4cb8-592c-abcd-b8c0879b709b","slug":"donald-a-riead-co-trustee-of-the-john-t-riead-jr-revocable-trust-et-al-v-d85899","caseName":"Donald A. Riead, Co-Trustee of the John T. Riead, Jr. Revocable Trust, et al.\nvs. \nJohn T. Riead, III, Co-Trustee of the John T. Riead, Jr. Revocable Trust, et al.","caseNumber":"WD85899","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-12-19","year":2023,"display_summary":"The Beneficiaries of the John T. Riead, Jr. Revocable Trust sought to remove John T. Riead III as co-trustee for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, while Riead III filed a counterclaim for instructions from the court. The trial court denied the Beneficiaries' petition, granted Riead III's counterclaim, and ordered all parties' attorney fees paid from the Trust. On cross-appeals, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the denial of the Beneficiaries' claims or the granting of Riead III's counterclaim. The court also affirmed the award of attorney fees from the Trust, but remanded for the sole purpose of calculating Riead III's appellate attorney fees.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review","civil-procedure","other"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203660","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/donald-a-riead-co-trustee-of-the-john-t-riead-jr-revocable-trust-et-al-v-d85899","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:sd37921:2023-09-07","opinionId":"e9a15b14-0ac0-5075-8ff1-e6e539869247","slug":"carmen-e-wood-fka-carmen-e-ready-an-individual-in-her-capacity-as-trustee-d37921","caseName":"CARMEN E. WOOD (f/k/a Carmen E. Ready), an individual in her capacity as Trustee of the Donald J. Ready and Carmen E. Ready Revocable Living Trust dated November 19, 2009, Plaintiff-Appellant\nv.\nMILLSAP & SINGER, P.C., et al., Defendants-Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37921","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-09-07","year":2023,"display_summary":"Carmen E. Wood appealed the entry of summary judgment in favor of Millsap & Singer, P.C. on her claims for breach of fiduciary duty and punitive damages. Wood argued the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on such a claim and by relying on a prior appellate decision involving a co-defendant, Bank of America. The appellate court affirmed, holding that summary judgment is permissible for breach of fiduciary duty claims and that the prior decision constituted binding law of the case. The court also found Wood's fourth point on appeal deficient due to multifariousness and lack of record references.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","property-real-estate","trusts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=200833","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carmen-e-wood-fka-carmen-e-ready-an-individual-in-her-capacity-as-trustee-d37921","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":18,"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":"moappwd:wd84894:2023-02-21","opinionId":"6710324a-a2d2-55d9-a6e3-0ad71719b80f","slug":"in-the-matter-of-the-h-boone-porter-trust-created-under-the-deed-of-trust-d84894","caseName":"In the Matter of the H. Boone Porter Trust created under the deed of trust dated August 1, 1960, as amended by amendment dated May 14, 1968, as reformed by judgment dated July 27, 1999, and as further amended by consent judgment dated November 21, 2002, and April 23, 2004, and also known as registered trust no. 169041, H. Boone Porter, III. \nvs. \nCaroline Porter Hayes, et al","caseNumber":"WD84894","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2023-02-21","year":2023,"display_summary":"Appellants, beneficiaries of the H. Boone Porter Trust, appealed the circuit court's judgment denying their request to remove H. Boone Porter, III, as individual co-trustee and to appoint a corporate co-trustee. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the request to remove Boone as trustee, finding substantial evidence supported the circuit court's finding that Boone acted in good faith and did not breach his fiduciary duties. However, the court reversed and remanded the denial of the request to appoint a corporate co-trustee, holding that the trust instrument provided Appellants independent authority to seek such an appointment regardless of a breach of trust.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=192613","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-the-h-boone-porter-trust-created-under-the-deed-of-trust-d84894","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:sd37483:2023-01-27","opinionId":"b46ed004-90c5-584b-b4f4-d4332b548b3f","slug":"julie-ann-thomas-plaintiffrespondent-v-kurt-e-hdoubler-individually-and-a-d37483","caseName":"JULIE ANN THOMAS, Plaintiff/Respondent\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 of the F.T. H’Doubler, Jr.,\t\nIrrevocable Trust dated May 1, 2000, and the Julie Ann Thomas Trust created thereunder, and as trustee of the Joan\nL. H’Doubler Irrevocable Trust dated December 28, 1982, and the Trust for the benefit of Julie Thomas and the Credit Shelter Trust created thereunder; and SARAH ELLEN MUEGGE, individually, and as co-trustee of the F.T. Doubler,\nJr. Irrevocable Trust dated May 1, 2000, and the Julie Ann Thomas Trust created thereunder; Defendants/Appellants\n\nDAVID A. HEALY, as personal representative of the Estate of Scott W. H’Doubler; BRIAN MUEGGE, \t\nindividually and as next friend of S.F.M. and B.W.M.; BETH MCGEE, individually and as next friend of R.C.M. and E.M.; TODD H’DOUBLER; SALLY H’DOUBLER; LAURIE THOMAS; BECKY THOMAS; COLLEEN T.\t\nWALTON, individually and as co-guardian of the person Marie H’Doubler and co-conservator of the Estate of Marie H’Doubler; GARY T.\tWALTON, SR., in his capacity as co-guardian of the person Marie H’Doubler and co-conservator of the Estate of Marie H’Doubler; and RICK STEVEN DENNEY, Defendants/Respondents.","caseNumber":"SD37483","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2023-01-27","year":2023,"display_summary":"Julie Ann Thomas initiated a suit as a beneficiary of several trusts, leading to a \"Safe Harbor\" determination by the trial court that no-contest clauses did not apply to her suit. Appellants Kurt H'Doubler and Sarah Muegge, beneficiaries and trustees, attempted an interlocutory appeal from this determination. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to timely file their notice of appeal within 10 days of the initial immediately appealable order, and a subsequent duplicate order did not extend the filing period.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","trusts"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191953","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/julie-ann-thomas-plaintiffrespondent-v-kurt-e-hdoubler-individually-and-a-d37483","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":"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":"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":"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":"moappsd:sd37340:2022-06-09","opinionId":"20ca5e93-1215-5267-a24b-8549ebcfaeb3","slug":"carmen-e-wood-fka-carmen-e-ready-an-individual-and-in-her-capacity-as-tru-d37340","caseName":"CARMEN E. WOOD (f/k/a Carmen E. Ready), an individual and in her capacity as Trustee of the Donald J. Ready and Carmen E. Ready Revocable Living Trust dated November 19, 2009, Plaintiff-Appellant\nvs.\nBANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant/Respondent\nand MILLSAP & SINGER, P.C., Defendant","caseNumber":"SD37340","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-06-09","year":2022,"display_summary":"Carmen E. Wood appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bank of America (BANA) and the release of a lis pendens. Wood argued that BANA breached a fiduciary duty related to a property held in a revocable living trust, and also sought exemplary or punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that no fiduciary duty existed between BANA as a lender and Wood as a borrower, and that the claim for punitive damages failed as it was contingent on the breach of fiduciary duty claim.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","summary-judgment","trusts","property-real-estate"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187333","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/carmen-e-wood-fka-carmen-e-ready-an-individual-and-in-her-capacity-as-tru-d37340","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:parent-187055","opinionId":"e5560ecc-ba45-59a1-987b-d35da95ff48a","slug":"in-re-the-glendale-lee-becking-trust-under-date-of-february-21-1995-as-am-d37039","caseName":"In Re: The GLENDALE LEE BECKING TRUST, under date of February 21, 1995 as amended on December 4, 1997 and the G.L. BECKING TRUST f/b/o CYNTHIA BECKING\nCYNTHIA BECKING, Co-Trustee, Plaintiff-Appellant/Respondent\nv.\nDUSTIN K. NEELEY, Co-Trustee, Defendant-Cross-Appellant/Respondent\nand\nLANA BECKING and COBY AYERS, Intervenors/Cross-Appellants","caseNumber":"SD37039","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-05-24","year":2022,"display_summary":"Cynthia Becking and her son, Dustin K. Neeley, disputed the interpretation of a trust regarding the distribution of principal and the appointment and removal of trustees. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment limiting principal distributions to extraordinary medical expenses and, after a trial, approved Mother's trustee appointment, removed Son as trustee, and awarded attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed the limitation on principal distributions but reversed the approval of Mother's trustee appointment and Son's removal, remanding the attorney fee award for reconsideration.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","civil-procedure","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187055","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-glendale-lee-becking-trust-under-date-of-february-21-1995-as-am-d37039","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":"moappsd:sd37056:2022-05-10","opinionId":"4221bd59-6176-50e0-806d-801f39f0f75e","slug":"in-re-the-marriage-of-tracy-lynn-hall-and-kelly-wayne-hall-tracy-lynn-hal-d37056","caseName":"In Re the Marriage of:  \nTRACY LYNN HALL and KELLY WAYNE HALL, \nTRACY LYNN HALL, Petitioner-Respondent\nv.\nKELLY WAYNE HALL, Respondent-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD37056","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-05-10","year":2022,"display_summary":"Kelly Hall appealed the trial court's judgment in his marriage dissolution action, arguing the court erred by denying his motions to reopen evidence regarding his ex-wife Tracy Hall's receipt of substantial nonmarital trust proceeds. The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to reopen the evidence, as the alleged nonmarital property could significantly impact the division of marital assets. The judgment was vacated and remanded with directions for the trial court to receive evidence on the wife's trust proceeds and conduct further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"divorce","topicSlugs":["divorce","family-law","civil-procedure","trusts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186794","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-the-marriage-of-tracy-lynn-hall-and-kelly-wayne-hall-tracy-lynn-hal-d37056","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:wd84312:2022-04-26","opinionId":"5da249c6-5810-52a7-929e-836f1771ba8a","slug":"richard-brown-et-al-v-susan-l-brown-et-al-d84312","caseName":"Richard Brown, et al.\nvs. \nSusan L. Brown, et al.","caseNumber":"WD84312","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2022-04-26","year":2022,"display_summary":"Richard Brown appealed the dismissal of his petition to enforce arbitration, which was part of extensive, long-running litigation concerning trusts and trust assets. The appellate court struck Brown's amended brief for multiple, significant violations of Rule 84.04, noting it was his second deficient brief in this appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal without reaching the merits. The court also found the appeal frivolous under Rule 84.19 and remanded the case to the trial court to determine an appropriate award of attorney's fees to Respondent Cooper.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","trusts"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=186397","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/richard-brown-et-al-v-susan-l-brown-et-al-d84312","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:sd37077:2022-03-02","opinionId":"800d6739-462a-5482-af73-47e42a16785a","slug":"johnathan-boswell-appellant-v-thomas-j-oneil-dwight-bethurem-amie-boswell-d37077","caseName":"JOHNATHAN BOSWELL, Appellant\nvs.\nTHOMAS J. O'NEIL, DWIGHT BETHUREM, AMIE BOSWELL DEWANE, JAMES B. BOSWELL, JOSEPH A. BOSWELL, and INDEPENDENT STAVE COMPANY, LLC, JOHN DOE(S), and JANE DOE(S), Respondents","caseNumber":"SD37077","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2022-03-02","year":2022,"display_summary":"Johnathan Boswell appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of trustees, siblings, and Independent Stave Company, LLC, in a trust action. Boswell had alleged breach of trust, tortious interference with an inheritance expectancy, unjust enrichment, and money had and received. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the breach of trust claim barred by a five-year statute of limitations and all other claims barred by claim preclusion. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that Boswell failed to properly dispute material facts under Rule 74.04 and was bound by his admissions regarding the trust's termination, and that the trial court did not err in applying claim preclusion or in not ruling on the defense of release.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=184915","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/johnathan-boswell-appellant-v-thomas-j-oneil-dwight-bethurem-amie-boswell-d37077","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"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"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:ed109327:2021-08-24","opinionId":"bca4d135-1880-5c89-bb8b-10f9c9915ac6","slug":"bruce-s-schlafly-appellant-v-anne-s-cori-respondent-109327","caseName":"Bruce S. Schlafly, Appellant, vs. Anne S. Cori, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED109327","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2021-08-24","year":2021,"display_summary":"Bruce S. Schlafly appealed the dismissal of his claims against Anne S. Cori for abuse of process, stemming from Cori's prior litigation challenging amendments to their mother's revocable trust. Schlafly alleged Cori's trust suit was an improper use of process to achieve collateral, unlawful ends. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Cori's challenge to the trust terms was an authorized use of process, and Schlafly's allegations of improper motive did not establish an improper use of process.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","trusts","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=179817","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/bruce-s-schlafly-appellant-v-anne-s-cori-respondent-109327","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:wd84032:2021-08-03","opinionId":"0ea6577c-842c-59f2-8140-4e2cf316fbd5","slug":"patricia-brown-v-marjorie-pint-et-al-d84032","caseName":"Patricia Brown\nvs. \nMarjorie Pint, et al","caseNumber":"WD84032","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-08-03","year":2021,"display_summary":"Patricia Brown appealed the dismissal of her petition seeking a constructive trust against her family members regarding real estate her father conveyed to them via a beneficiary deed in 2001. The circuit court dismissed the petition, finding Brown's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the ten-year statute of limitations began to run when the beneficiary deed was recorded in 2001, providing constructive notice, and that the continuing wrong exception did not apply to the alleged loss of rental income.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","trusts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=179179","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/patricia-brown-v-marjorie-pint-et-al-d84032","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":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":18,"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: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":"moappwd:wd84048:2021-05-25","opinionId":"b7e30758-ec4b-577c-93d8-3c26adc88f3b","slug":"emily-riegel-allan-pickert-and-joann-pickert-v-david-g-jungerman-as-trust-d84048","caseName":"Emily Riegel, Allan Pickert and Joann Pickert\nvs. \nDavid G. Jungerman, as Trustee or Co-Trustee of the Jungerman Family Irrevocable Trust","caseNumber":"WD84048","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2021-05-25","year":2021,"display_summary":"Plaintiffs Emily Riegel, Allan Pickert, and Joann Pickert initiated a wrongful death and fraudulent conveyance action against David Jungerman and others, alleging Jungerman killed attorney Thomas Pickert and conspired to hide assets. A partial settlement was reached, which Jungerman, as alleged trustee of the Jungerman Family Irrevocable Trust, objected to, claiming he had standing. The trial court overruled his objection, finding he lacked standing. The appellate court dismissed Jungerman's appeal, concluding he was not an aggrieved party and therefore lacked standing to challenge the settlement.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","trusts","civil-procedure","wrongful-death"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=177580","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/emily-riegel-allan-pickert-and-joann-pickert-v-david-g-jungerman-as-trust-d84048","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":"wrongful-death","label":"Wrongful Death","href":"/practice-areas/wrongful-death","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/wrongful-death"},{"slug":"litigation","label":"Civil Litigation","href":"/practice-areas/litigation","score":12,"source":"topic","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/litigation"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc98743:2021-04-06","opinionId":"fbb6fb36-87b1-5a2f-a285-a6b1d03c24a0","slug":"david-and-gale-collison-appellants-v-director-of-revenue-respondent-c98743","caseName":"David and Gale Collison, Appellants, vs. Director of Revenue, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC98743","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2021-04-06","year":2021,"display_summary":"David and Gale Collison sought a sales tax credit for a replacement vehicle after their original car was declared a casualty loss. The Administrative Hearing Commission denied the credit, finding that a revocable trust, not the Collisons, owned the new vehicle, while the Collisons owned the replaced one. On appeal, the Collisons argued they and the trust were the same entity for credit purposes. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed the AHC's decision, holding that Missouri law distinguishes between natural persons and trusts, making them legally separate owners for the sales tax credit.","primaryTopic":"administrative-law","topicSlugs":["administrative-law","trusts","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=176497","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/david-and-gale-collison-appellants-v-director-of-revenue-respondent-c98743","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":20,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/real-estate"}]},{"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":"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":"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:sd36494:2020-12-10","opinionId":"52f2567d-2569-5876-ad18-92d525554e78","slug":"julie-ann-thomas-appellant-v-kurt-e-hdoubler-individually-and-as-trustee-d36494","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 of 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, 1982, and the Trust for the benefit of Julie Thomas and the Credit Shelter Trust created thereunder, Sarah Ellen Meugge, Estate of Scott Wesley H'Doubler, Brian Meugge, individually and as next friend 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, Becky 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, Rick Steven Denney, Respondents","caseNumber":"SD36494","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-12-10","year":2020,"display_summary":"Julie Ann Thomas appealed an interlocutory order from a trust dispute, seeking a safe harbor determination regarding no-contest clauses in several trusts. The trial court's 2018 order found some of Thomas's petition paragraphs violated no-contest clauses, while others did not. Thomas then filed a motion for a new safe harbor determination on a third amended petition or reconsideration of the 2018 order. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the 2019 order Thomas challenged only denied reconsideration of the 2018 order and did not constitute an appealable order determining a petition under section 456.4-420.1.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","trusts","civil-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=170393","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/julie-ann-thomas-appellant-v-kurt-e-hdoubler-individually-and-as-trustee-d36494","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":"moappsd:sd36218:2020-07-08","opinionId":"60f2d3c1-4117-5c7f-b270-40f38b202cbb","slug":"in-re-romona-wooldridge-durable-power-of-attorney-roberta-hull-respondent-d36218","caseName":"In re ROMONA WOOLDRIDGE\nDURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY,\nROBERTA HULL, Respondent\nvs.\nMATTHEW HULL, Trustee, Appellant\nDAVID YANCEY, Personal Representative of the Estate of Romona Wooldridge, Respondent","caseNumber":"SD36218","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":"2020-07-08","year":2020,"display_summary":"Roberta Hull challenged the validity of her parents' 2017 trust restatements, including a no-contest clause. The trial court issued an interlocutory order declaring the no-contest clause unenforceable against Roberta's claims. Matthew Hull, in his capacity as trustee, appealed this order. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trustee lacked standing because he was not \"aggrieved\" by the order and had a conflict of interest that precluded him from representing other beneficiaries.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"dismissed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=161753","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-re-romona-wooldridge-durable-power-of-attorney-roberta-hull-respondent-d36218","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: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":"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":"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":"mo:sc97985:2020-03-17","opinionId":"cd7cc364-3701-5e24-983a-8b4b84603b6b","slug":"samuel-s-knopik-appellant-v-shelby-investments-llc-respondent-c97985","caseName":"Samuel S. Knopik, Appellant, vs. Shelby Investments, LLC, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC97985","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2020-03-17","year":2020,"display_summary":"Samuel S. Knopik, the sole beneficiary of a trust, sued the trustee, Shelby Investments, LLC, for breach of trust and removal after distributions ceased. The trustee counterclaimed, asserting Knopik's suit violated the trust's no-contest clause, thereby forfeiting his beneficial interest. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the trustee on its counterclaim. The Missouri Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Knopik's failure to utilize the statutory \"safe harbor\" under section 456.4-420 to challenge the no-contest clause meant his petition violated the clause as written.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=152153","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/samuel-s-knopik-appellant-v-shelby-investments-llc-respondent-c97985","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":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"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":"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":"moappd:ed107312:2019-10-29","opinionId":"1ab8c566-2a0a-5597-a46a-dd0ca227fd57","slug":"anthony-hoyt-appellant-v-david-robertson-et-al-respondents-107312","caseName":"Anthony Hoyt, Appellant, vs. David Robertson, et al., Respondents.","caseNumber":"ED107312","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-10-29","year":2019,"display_summary":"Anthony Hoyt appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of David and Virginia Robertson regarding the validity of an amendment to the Debra R. Hoyt Trust. Husband sought to void the amendment, which removed him as a successor trustee and income beneficiary from the Trust, whose sole asset was Wife's inherited farmland. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Husband had no ownership interest in the Farm, was not a co-settlor, and failed to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding Wife's capacity or undue influence.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","property-real-estate","summary-judgment","civil-procedure","family-law"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=145917","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/anthony-hoyt-appellant-v-david-robertson-et-al-respondents-107312","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:ed106011:2019-09-24","opinionId":"52ccfe57-314d-5e7d-a477-4c51f401206b","slug":"whitmoor-realty-llc-respondent-v-kevin-j-beckerle-as-trustee-of-the-delor-106011","caseName":"Whitmoor Realty, LLC, Respondent, v. Kevin J. Beckerle as Trustee of the Delora A. Beckerle Living Trust dated June 10, 1999, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED106011","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-09-24","year":2019,"display_summary":"Kevin J. Beckerle, as Trustee of the Delora A. Beckerle Living Trust, appealed a judgment in favor of Whitmoor Realty, LLC, for breach of a promissory note. The Trust had executed a note which was later assigned to Whitmoor, and after foreclosure, a balance remained. Beckerle argued the claim was time-barred by a statute governing creditor claims against a settlor, and challenged evidentiary rulings. The Eastern District affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the statute applied only to creditors of a settlor, not the trust itself, and that the evidentiary rulings were within the trial court's discretion.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","contracts","evidence","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=144793","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/whitmoor-realty-llc-respondent-v-kevin-j-beckerle-as-trustee-of-the-delor-106011","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":"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:ed106418:2019-07-23","opinionId":"e9df3c92-8116-5a53-8320-71f89bff57e6","slug":"stephens-cemetery-est-1864-inc-et-al-respondents-v-wilma-elizabeth-tyler-106418","caseName":"Stephens Cemetery, Est. 1864, Inc., et al., Respondents, vs. Wilma Elizabeth Tyler, Appellant.","caseNumber":"ED106418","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":"2019-07-23","year":2019,"display_summary":"Wilma Elizabeth Tyler appealed a judgment quieting title to a cemetery in favor of Stephens Cemetery, Est. 1864, Inc., and individual respondents. The trial court found title to a 3.11-acre cemetery vested in the public and charged the Corporation with its maintenance. The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding that the individual respondents lacked standing, the Corporation could not claim adverse possession, the trial court erred in allowing an amendment to pleadings, and there was no legal basis to vest title of the disputed land in the public or through adverse possession.","primaryTopic":"property-real-estate","topicSlugs":["property-real-estate","civil-procedure","trusts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=142536","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/stephens-cemetery-est-1864-inc-et-al-respondents-v-wilma-elizabeth-tyler-106418","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"},{"slug":"corporate","label":"Corporate Law","href":"/practice-areas/corporate","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/corporate"}]},{"caseId":"mo:sc97418:2019-06-25","opinionId":"0bad0edb-7c66-5d4c-997b-2dd203de1bd8","slug":"state-ex-rel-board-of-curators-of-the-university-of-missouri-relator-v-th-c97418","caseName":"State ex rel. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri, Relator, vs. The Honorable Joseph L. Green, Respondent.","caseNumber":"SC97418","court":"mo","courtLabel":"Supreme Court of Missouri","decisionDate":"2019-06-25","year":2019,"display_summary":"Hillsdale College filed a declaratory judgment action in St. Louis County challenging the Board of Curators of the University of Missouri's administration of a testamentary trust. The Curators sought a writ of mandamus to compel the circuit court to transfer venue to Boone County, arguing that specific trust venue statutes applied. The Missouri Supreme Court made its preliminary writ of mandamus permanent, holding that the specific venue provisions for trust administration supersede general venue statutes, and directed the circuit court to transfer the case to Boone County.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"transferred","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=141593","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/state-ex-rel-board-of-curators-of-the-university-of-missouri-relator-v-th-c97418","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:wd81633:2019-03-05","opinionId":"857b8196-2208-58f5-a64a-1822a9794aad","slug":"michael-douglass-v-phillip-douglass-d81633","caseName":"Michael Douglass\nvs.\nPhillip Douglass","caseNumber":"WD81633","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":"2019-03-05","year":2019,"display_summary":"Michael Douglass sued his brother, Phillip Douglass, seeking to quiet title in a property and share in homeowners' insurance proceeds after a fire. The trial court imposed a constructive trust on the insurance proceeds, ordering them split equally, and restored Michael to title as a joint tenant, also ordering a partition sale. Phillip appealed, arguing that some of the trial court's factual findings supporting the constructive trust were not based on substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed, finding that even if the challenged findings were erroneous, other unchallenged findings provided substantial evidence to support the imposition of the constructive trust.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","property-real-estate","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","insurance"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=137536","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/michael-douglass-v-phillip-douglass-d81633","relatedPracticeAreas":[{"slug":"insurance-bad-faith","label":"Insurance Bad Faith","href":"/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith","score":32,"source":"tag","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/insurance-bad-faith"},{"slug":"real-estate","label":"Real Estate","href":"/practice-areas/real-estate","score":16,"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: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":"moappwd:wd86738:undated","opinionId":"7bd5a087-dc49-5d21-a08b-5bebf47377df","slug":"in-the-matter-of-the-james-a-long-trust-dated-december-13-2007-as-amended-d86738","caseName":"In the Matter of the James A. Long Trust Dated December 13, 2007 as Amended. Sharon Long, Successor Trustee\nvs.\nKevin Long, Et al.","caseNumber":"WD86738","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"The Appellants, beneficiaries of the James A. Long Trust, appealed from an amended judgment that terminated their beneficiary rights due to a violation of the trust's no-contest clause. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Appellants' brief contained substantial and material deficiencies that prevented meaningful appellate review, specifically non-compliance with Rule 84.04 regarding the statement of facts, points relied on, and argument development.","primaryTopic":"appellate-procedure","topicSlugs":["appellate-procedure","civil-procedure","trusts"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=215515","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/in-the-matter-of-the-james-a-long-trust-dated-december-13-2007-as-amended-d86738","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: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":"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:ed113426:undated","opinionId":"349bdc3d-bb51-56a1-b004-a786a2fa0222","slug":"karen-e-spalding-deborah-k-thelen-and-cynthia-m-parazak-appellants-v-kimb-113426","caseName":"Karen E. Spalding, Deborah K. Thelen, and Cynthia M. Parazak, Appellants, v. Kimberly Agnes Martin and Gary Thomas Martin, Respondent.","caseNumber":"ED113426","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Plaintiffs Karen Spalding, Cynthia Parazak, and Deborah Thelen appealed the trial court's judgment granting Defendants Kimberly and Gary Martin's motion to enforce a settlement and dismissing their lawsuit. The dispute arose from Martin's use of funds from a family trust. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the email exchanges and actions of the parties constituted clear and convincing evidence of a valid settlement agreement.","primaryTopic":"contracts","topicSlugs":["contracts","civil-procedure","trusts"],"outcomeNorm":"affirmed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=229377","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/karen-e-spalding-deborah-k-thelen-and-cynthia-m-parazak-appellants-v-kimb-113426","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:ed111296:undated","opinionId":"c4dc79ad-7570-5378-a03c-fb5cbb6f1b08","slug":"steven-r-finley-et-al-respondents-v-karen-i-finley-et-al-appellants-111296","caseName":"Steven R. Finley, et al., Respondents, v. Karen I. Finley, et al., Appellants.","caseNumber":"ED111296","court":"moappd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"Karen I. Finley and Steven R. Finley, siblings and beneficiaries of their mother's trust, disputed the interpretation of a settlement agreement (MOU) concerning a cash distribution related to their mother's residence. The trial court found a paragraph of the MOU ambiguous, concluding the payment should come from Karen personally, and ordered her to pay attorney's fees. The appellate court reversed, holding that the MOU unambiguously required the cash distribution to be made from the trust, not Karen personally, and therefore the attorney's fee award based on the erroneous interpretation was also reversed.","primaryTopic":"trusts","topicSlugs":["trusts","contracts","civil-procedure","appellate-procedure","standard-of-review"],"outcomeNorm":"unknown","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=205073","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/steven-r-finley-et-al-respondents-v-karen-i-finley-et-al-appellants-111296","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":"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:wd85658:undated","opinionId":"68a45398-3d12-55e7-90b7-d08d69bd5f4d","slug":"james-d-merchant-et-al-james-d-merchant-personal-representative-for-james-d85658","caseName":"James D. Merchant, et al., James D. Merchant, Personal Representative for James T. Merchant (Deceased)\nvs. \nGrand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Missouri","caseNumber":"WD85658","court":"moappwd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District","decisionDate":null,"year":2024,"display_summary":"The Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Missouri appealed the denial of its motion to intervene in a dispute between two factions of the Marshall Masonic Temple Association's Board of Directors over corporate control and property. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that Grand Lodge satisfied all three elements required for intervention as a matter of right under Rule 52.12(a). The case was remanded with instructions to grant Grand Lodge's intervention.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","property-real-estate","trusts","appellate-procedure"],"outcomeNorm":"mixed","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=203974","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/james-d-merchant-et-al-james-d-merchant-personal-representative-for-james-d85658","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"},{"slug":"criminal-law","label":"Criminal Law","href":"/practice-areas/criminal-law","score":4,"source":"text","url":"https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law"}]},{"caseId":"moappsd:sd38729:undated","opinionId":"0206d2d1-8569-5b74-a4e1-851a2919815c","slug":"scarlett-norris-adams-as-trustee-of-the-scarlett-norris-adams-revocable-t-d38729","caseName":"SCARLETT NORRIS ADAMS, AS TRUSTEE OF THE SCARLETT NORRIS ADAMS REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED APRIL 9, 2013, Appellant/Cross-Respondent\nv.\nELIZA LAMM, Respondent/Cross-Appellant","caseNumber":"SD38729","court":"moappsd","courtLabel":"Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District","decisionDate":null,"year":2025,"display_summary":"Scarlett Norris Adams, as Trustee, appealed the trial court's failure to award attorney fees in a partition action, while Eliza Lamm cross-appealed the dismissal of her counterclaims. The appellate court found that the trial court erred by considering matters outside the pleadings and making a finding of fact when ruling on a motion to dismiss, and by incorrectly determining it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Lamm's quiet title counterclaim. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the dismissal of Lamm's counterclaims and all subsequent orders, remanding the case for further proceedings.","primaryTopic":"civil-procedure","topicSlugs":["civil-procedure","property-real-estate","summary-judgment","appellate-procedure","trusts"],"outcomeNorm":"modified","officialSourceUrl":"https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=227553","detailUrl":"https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/scarlett-norris-adams-as-trustee-of-the-scarlett-norris-adams-revocable-t-d38729","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"}]}]}