robyn-wahlgren-successor-trustee-of-the-amendment-in-whole-of-the-eugene ( 2014 )

IN THE MISS
SOURI COUR OF APPEALS
I RT F
WEESTER DISTRICT
RN T
ROBYN WAHLGRE SUCCE
EN, ESSOR )
TRUSTE OF THE AMENDME
EE ENT IN )
WHOLE OF THE EU
E UGENE STA
ANLEY )
BOYDSTTON AND MARY M. BOYDSTON
M B N )
TRUST DATED JAN
D NUARY 15, 2002,
, )
)
ondent,
Respo ) WD7687
76
)
vs. ) Opinion filed: June 17, 2014
)
MS. ROB
BYN WAHL
LGREN, IND
DIVID., )
)
Respo
ondent, )
)
MRS. PA
AULA A. RA
ACCUGLIA and
A )
MRS. MA
ARY M. HUUNT, )
)
Appel
llants. )
EAL FROM THE CIR
APPE M RCUIT COU
URT OF BUUCHANAN COUNTY, MISSOUR
, RI
THE HONO
T ORABLE DA
ANIEL F. K
KELLOGG, JUDGE
,
Before Divisi Two: Vi
B ion ictor C. How
ward, Presidi Judge,
ing
Alok Ahuja, Judge and Gary D Witt, Jud
A D. dge
Paula Raccug and Ma Hunt app
glia ary peal the judg
gment of th trial court overruling their
he t
objection to Succes
ns ssor Trustee’s Proposed Distribution Plan for t Amendm
n the ment in Who of
ole
the Euge Stanley Boydston an Mary M. Boydston T
ene B nd Trust and di
irecting Succ
cessor Trust to
tee
distribute the Trust assets as pro
e a oposed. The contend th Distribut
ey hat tion Plan wa contrary t the
as to
intent of Grantors in several way The appe is dismiss
ys. eal sed.
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.
2
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
3
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
4
dispose of the issue. Ms. Wahl
o lgren’s petiti for decla
ion aratory judg
gment and M Raccuglia and
Ms.
Ms. Hun counter and cross claims remai pending. These clai
nt’s c in ims involved requests f an
d for
accountin allegations of mis
ng, sconduct, and an atte
a empt to exclude Ms. Wahlgren from
participat
tion as a ben
neficiary of the Trust. Resolution o these clai
R of ims will ulti
imately affec the
ct
distributi of trust assets; there
ion efore, the issue has not been fully adjudicated See, e.g. In re
d.
Estate of Comia, 657 S.W.2d 63 64 (Mo. App. E.D. 19
f 7 3, A 983)(order fi
finding that c
child of decedent
may be entitled to statutory allow
e wance of sup
pport, which was govern by secti
h ned ions 472.160
0.1(4)
and (14) was not appealable where the order indicat that the court inten
), a w ted nded to limi her
it
support but the amount of the award had not yet been determined and, thus, t issue ha not
b a the ad
been fully adjudicate Ritter, 510 S.W.2d at 189 (order awarding p
ed); a r partial attorn
neys’ fees wa not
as
appealable under sec
ction 472.160.1 where ad
dditional ord for com
ders mpensation m be made at a
may e
later time and the or
e, rder did not fully adjudicate the rig
ghts of the p
parties). The judgment i not
e is
appealable, and this court lacks th authority to review th case.
c he y he
The appeal is dismissed.
T
__________
__________
___________
__________
_____
VICTOR C HOWARD JUDGE
C. D,
ur.
All concu
5