Robyn Wahlgren, Successor Trustee Of The Amendment In Whole Of The Eugene Stanley Boydston And Mary M. Boydston Trust Dated January 15, 2002 vs. Ms. Robyn Wahlgren, Individually; Mrs. Paula A. Raccuglia And Mrs. Mary M. Hunt

ROBYN TRUST E WHOLE BOYDST TRUST D

vs.

MS. RO B

MRS. PA MRS. MA

APP E

P objection the Euge distribute intent of IN TH WAHLGRE EE OF THE E OF THE EU TON AND M DATED JAN

Resp o

BYN WAHL

Respo

AULA A. RA ARY M. HU

Appel EAL FROM T B aula Raccug ns to Succes ene Stanley B e the Trust a Grantors in E MISS WE EN, SUCCE AMENDME UGENE STA MARY M. B NUARY 15,

ondent,

LGREN, IND

ondent, ACCUGLIA UNT, llants. M THE CIR THE HONO Before Divisi Alok A glia and Ma ssor Trustee Boydston an assets as pro several way SOURI ESTER ESSOR ENT IN ANLEY BOYDSTON , 2002, DIVID., A and RCUIT COU ORABLE DA ion Two: Vi Ahuja, Judg ary Hunt app 's Proposed nd Mary M. oposed. The ys. The appe I COUR RN DIS ) ) ) N ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) URT OF BU ANIEL F. K

ictor C. How e and Gary D peal the judg Distribution Boydston T ey contend th eal is dismiss RT OF TRIC T WD7687 Opinion

UCHANAN KELLOGG, ward, Presidi D. Witt, Jud gment of th n Plan for t Trust and di hat Distribut sed. F APPE T 76

COUNTY , , JUDGE ing Judge, dge he trial court the Amendm irecting Succ tion Plan wa ALS 17, 2014 , MISSOUR t overruling ment in Who cessor Trust as contrary t RI their ole of tee to to the

2

Factual and Procedural Background The facts in this case are not disputed. Paula Raccuglia and Mary Hunt are two of the three surviving children and named beneficiaries of Grantors under the Amendment in Whole of the Eugene Stanley Boydston and Mary M. Boydston Trust Dated January 15, 2002. Robyn Wahlgren is the third surviving child and a named beneficiary under the Trust. She lived with her parents for several years before their deaths and was the initial Successor Trustee of the Trust. The primary asset of the Trust is the Boydston family farm in Buchanan County. The farm includes a residence, barns, outbuildings, personal property, and 297 acres of land. The land consists of the East Land, 135 acres east of Interstate Highway 29, and the West Land, 162 acres west of I-29. The Trust also contains a Trust bank account, which includes proceeds from farming. Following Mary Boydston's death in November 2010 and Eugene Boydston's death in January 2011, disputes arose between the beneficiaries regarding the division and distribution of Trust assets and other issues. Ms. Wahlgren, in her capacity as the initial Successor Trustee, filed a petition for declaratory judgment against Ms. Raccuglia, Ms. Hunt, and herself in her capacity as a beneficiary. The petition sought instruction on how to reconcile two provisions of the Trust regarding distribution of Trust assets and on whether two annuities were to be considered property of the Trust. Ms. Raccuglia and Ms. Hunt filed their answer and counterclaims and cross claims against Ms. Wahlgren in her capacity as initial Successor Trustee and as a beneficiary. Those claims involved requests for an accounting, allegations of misconduct, and an attempt to exclude Ms. Wahlgren from participation as a beneficiary of the Trust.

3

Thereafter, Ms. Raccuglia and Ms. Hunt filed a motion for summary judgment, and Ms. Wahlgren filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Ms. Raccuglia and Ms. Hunt also filed a motion to remove Ms. Wahlgren as the initial Successor Trustee. The trial court sustained the motion to remove Ms. Wahlgren, and Dave Bolander was appointed Successor Trustee. The trial court overruled the parties' motions for summary judgment. In January 2013, Ms. Raccuglia and Ms. Hunt filed a motion for proposal of distribution by trustee. The trial court granted the motion and directed Successor Trustee to present a proposal for distribution of the Trust estate. In April 2013, the Successor Trustee issued a Proposed Distribution Plan. In it, he proposed that Ms. Wahlgren receive ten acres of the East Land that included the home and outbuildings, the personal property at the farm, and 85 additional acres of East Land for a total of 95 acres. Mr. Bolander proposed that Ms. Raccuglia and Ms. Hunt, who had agreed to take their shares together, would receive 162 acres of West Land, 40 acres of East Land, and the funds in the Trust bank account, which included the proceeds from the 2013 crops estimated by the Successor Trustee to be $40,000. Under the Proposed Distribution, Ms. Wahlgren's share was valued at $472,740 (36.4%) and Ms. Raccuglia and Ms. Hunt's share was valued at $825,760 (63.6%) or $412,880 (31.8%) each. The Proposed Plan also informed each party that they had thirty days to object to the proposal consistent with section 456.8-817, RSMo Cum. Supp. 2013. Ms. Raccuglia and Ms. Hunt and Ms. Wahlgren filed objections, and thereafter Successor Trustee notified the parties that he did not intend to further modify his proposal. Following a hearing, the trial court entered judgment in August 2013 overruling the parties' objections and directing Successor Trustee to distribute the funds pursuant to the Proposed Plan. This appeal by Ms. Raccuglia and Ms. Hunt followed. The trial court continued indefinitely a bench trial to

4

resolve the other pending claims, counterclaims, and cross claims, which had been set for September 2013. Motion to Dismiss Appeal Ms. Wahlgren filed a motion to dismiss appeal, which was taken with the case. She asserted that because other issues in the case remained pending, the judgment on Successor Trustee's Proposed Distribution Plan was not final or appealable. Generally, an appellate court lacks authority to review a case if the judgment is not final. In re Estate of Ginn, 323 S.W.3d 860, 862 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). However, section 472.160.1, RSMo 2000, creates an expedited right to permissively appeal from certain interlocutory orders, judgments, or decrees of the probate division of the circuit court. Id. If an order or judgment falls within the enumerated exceptions in section 472.160.1, it is deemed final for purposes of appeal. Id. "Such expedited appeals serve the salutary purpose of allowing many matters of importance to be resolved while the estate is open, and prevents one complex appeal from all matters that occurred during the administration of the estate." Id. at 863 (internal quotes and citation omitted). "Although section 472.160 makes some interlocutory probate orders appealable, 'it is well established that as to any specific proceeding, the rights of the parties must be fully adjudicated and all issues fully disposed of, or the order is not appealable.'" Id. (quoting In re Estate of Ritter, 510 S.W.2d 188, 189 (Mo. App. 1974)). Sections 472.160.1(3) and (13) allow an appeal in the following cases: "On all apportionments among creditors, legatees or distributees," and "On all orders denying any of the foregoing requested actions," respectively. While the judgment directing Successor Trustee to distribute the Trust assets as proposed involves apportionment of trust assets among distributees, the judgment does not fully adjudicate the rights of the parties regarding the trust property or

dispose o Ms. Hun accountin participat distributi Estate of may be e and (14) support b been full appealab later time appealab T

All conc u

of the issue. nt's counter ng, allegati tion as a ben ion of trust f Comia, 657 entitled to st ), was not a but the amo y adjudicate le under sec e, and the or le, and this c The appeal is ur. Ms. Wah l and cross c ons of mis neficiary of assets; there 7 S.W.2d 63 atutory allow appealable w unt of the a ed); Ritter, 5 ction 472.16 rder did not court lacks th dismissed. lgren's petiti claims remai sconduct, a the Trust. R efore, the is 3, 64 (Mo. A wance of sup where the o award had n 10 S.W.2d a 0.1 where ad fully adjud he authority

5 ion for decla in pending. and an atte Resolution o sue has not App. E.D. 19 pport, which rder indicat ot yet been at 189 (order dditional ord icate the rig y to review th __________ VICTOR C aratory judg These clai empt to ex of these clai been fully 983)(order fi h was govern ted that the determined r awarding p ders for com ghts of the p he case. __________ C. HOWARD gment and M ims involved clude Ms. ims will ulti adjudicated finding that c ned by secti court inten and, thus, t partial attorn mpensation m parties). The ___________ D, JUDGE Ms. Raccugli d requests f Wahlgren imately affec d. See, e.g. child of dec ions 472.160 nded to limi the issue ha neys' fees wa may be made e judgment i __________ a and for an from ct the In re edent 0.1(4) it her ad not as not e at a is not _____