OTT LAW

In the Estate of: Reed Wiley, Deceased.

Decision date: March 19, 2013ED98738

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

IN THE ESTATE OF: ) No. ED98738 REED WILEY, DECEASED. ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of St. Louis County ) ) Honorable Carolyn W. Whittington ) ) Filed: March 19, 2013

Jessica Malone, formerly Jessica Cheeseman, the step-granddaughter of the decedent, appeals the order of the probate division of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County denying her affidavit for collection of a small estate. Because, under all the facts of the case, we construe her affidavit as a request to admit the decedent's will to probate, we reverse and remand the order of the circuit court. Following her step-grandfather's death on April 29, 2011, the appellant filed a copy of her step-grandfather's will and her affidavit for collection of small estate on April 30, 2012, the final day of the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Section 473.050.3(2) RSMo. (2000) 1 . The appellant delivered the original will to the probate division on May 22, 2012. The will devised all of the decedent's property to the appellant, and named her personal representative of the estate. On June 7, 2012, the probate division of the circuit court denied the appellant's affidavit for collection of small estate because she neither filed a separate application to admit

1 All statutory references are to RSMo. (2000) except as otherwise indicated.

her step-grandfather's will to probate, nor specifically requested admission of the will to probate in her affidavit. Furthermore, the circuit court observed that the time for presenting the will for probate had since expired. 2

In one point on appeal, the appellant challenges the denial of her affidavit for collection of small estate. Where there is no dispute as to the basic procedural facts, we review the legal issues de novo, and issues involving the interpretation of statutory language are questions of law. Hawkins v. Lemasters, 200 S.W.3d 57, 59 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006). In cases involving questions of law, we review the circuit court's determination independently, without deference to that court's conclusions. Id. Section 473.050.1 states that "[a] will, to be effective as a will, must be presented for and admitted to probate." The statute then defines the term "presented" for purposes of the probate code. Section 473.050.2. To "present" a will for probate, one must first deliver the decedent's will to the probate division of the circuit court that would be the proper venue for administering the decedent's estate. Section 473.050.2(1). Alternatively, if the will has been lost, destroyed, suppressed, or is otherwise unavailable, one must deliver a verified statement setting forth the will's provisions, to the extent known, and explaining its unavailability. Id. Second, one must also deliver to the probate division of the circuit court one of the following: a) an affidavit pursuant to section 473.097 RSMo. (Supp. 2012), which requests the will be admitted to probate; or b) a petition which seeks to have the will admitted to probate; or c) an authenticated copy of the order admitting the will to probate in any other U.S. state, territory, or district. Section 473.050.2(2).

2 "No proof shall be taken of any will nor a certificate of probate thereof issued unless such will has been presented within the applicable time set forth as follows: . . . (2) In cases where notice has not previously been given in accordance with section 473.033 of the granting of letters on the estate of testator, within one year after the death of the testator[.]" Section 473.050.3.

2

The court's denial of the appellant's affidavit for failure to include certain language is analogous to the dismissal for failure to adequately plead a claim for relief. A motion to dismiss is an attack on the petition, and is solely a test of the adequacy of the pleading. In re Estate of Clark, 83 S.W.3d 699, 702 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002). As such, we must determine if the facts pleaded and the reasonable inferences therefrom state any ground for relief. Id. Courts should not judge probate pleadings by the strict rules applied to pleadings in the circuit court. Id. The pleadings need only give reasonable notice of the nature and extent of the claim, and the court should assume the facts stated therein are true. Id. at 702-03. The court's ruling must liberally construe the facts in the petitioner's favor, allowing the benefit of all inferences fairly deducible from the facts stated in the pleading. Id. at 703. Here, the appellant timely filed in the probate division of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County a form she obtained from the probate division titled affidavit for collection of small estate along with a copy of the will. The appellant also delivered her step-grandfather's original will to the probate division of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County while her affidavit was pending before the court. Said will devised all of the decedent's property to the appellant, and named her as the estate's personal representative. The title of the affidavit demonstrates that the appellant sought collection of her step-grandfather's assets. In addition, she stated in her affidavit that she was the sole devisee, and that no application for letters or for refusal of letters was either pending or had been granted. We must judge the appellant's affidavit less strictly than a civil petition filed in the circuit court, granting the appellant the benefit of all inferences fairly deducible from the facts stated. Id. at 702-03. Generally, where a party seeks relief under a particular statute, she is not required to refer to the statute or to use its terms literally; rather, she is required to plead facts that bring

3

Related Opinions

PAUL METZGER, and JACQUELINE METZGER, Respondents v. WAYNE MORELOCK, and KATHY MORELOCK, Appellants(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern DistrictMarch 12, 2026#SD38930

affirmed

The trial court granted summary judgment to the Metzgers on their claim for a prescriptive easement over a portion of a paved driveway between their home and the Morelocks' property. The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

real-estateper_curiam1,904 words

Kevin Rosenbohm, Trustee of the Kevin and Michele Rosenbohm Family Trust Dated July 1, 2011 and Matt Rosenbohm and Nick Rosenbohm vs. Gregory Stiens, and Gregory Stiens, Trustee of the Anthony Stiens Trust(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 3, 2026#WD87720

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the Rosenbohms on their adverse possession and trespass claims against Stiens regarding disputed tracts of property in Nodaway County. The court rejected Stiens's arguments regarding excluded evidence, cross-examination, jury instructions on permissive use defense, and remanded the case for the court to amend the judgment with precise legal descriptions of the disputed property.

real-estatemajority3,613 words

Arthur F. Daume, Jr., and Gayle C. Daume, Appellants, v. Thomas Szepanksi, et al., Respondents.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 3, 2026#ED113073

reversed

In this quiet title appeal, the court reversed the trial court's interpretation of an easement deed that the Daumes held over a private roadway. The court rejected the trial court's constructions that the easement's 'non-commercial purposes' limitation prohibited agricultural use and that it was restricted to the Daumes and their immediate family members.

real-estatemajority2,252 words

Colleen Eikmeier and William S. Love, Appellants, vs. Granite Springs Home Owners Association, Inc. A Missouri Not-For-Profit Corp., Respondent.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriJanuary 23, 2026#SC101161

reversed

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's judgment and held that a 2022 statute prohibiting homeowners' associations from banning solar panel installations applies to preexisting covenants, not just prospective ones. The homeowners' challenge to the HOA's restriction on solar panels visible from the street was successful, as the statute's prohibitions supersede prior restrictive covenants.

real-estatemajority4,531 words

State of Missouri, ex rel., State Tax Commission vs. County Executive of Jackson County, Missouri, Assessor of Jackson County, Missouri, Jackson County Board of Equalization, through its Members in their Official Capacities, Clerk of the Jackson County, Missouri, Legislature(2025)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictDecember 30, 2025#WD87831

affirmed
real-estatemajority3,220 words