Brown v. Brown
530 S.W.3d 35
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Harlin Brown created a revocable living trust (restated 2001). He served as sole trustee until his death in 2007; his wife Marlene became co-trustee then; Christopher Erblich and son Jason Brown later served as co-trustees at different times.
- Keith Brown (eldest son) sued Marlene, Jason, and Erblich alleging breach of fiduciary duty for distributions to Marlene; action tried to the bench in Oct. 2014.
- Defendants counterclaimed for attorney’s fees. The trial court entered judgment for respondents and later awarded $127,837.51 in attorney’s fees to Marlene and Erblich.
- Key factual dispute: whether trustees made excessive or improper distributions of principal to Marlene rather than conserving the trust for contingent remaindermen. Trial court found distributions appropriate given Trust language, reimbursements Marlene made on Trust’s behalf, and her $200,000 contribution.
- Appellant raised five appellate points: breach of fiduciary duty; erroneous admission of character evidence; failure of court to sua sponte recuse; abuse of discretion in credibility findings; and improper award of attorney’s fees to Marlene in her trustee capacity. Court affirmed in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trustees breached fiduciary duties by making excessive distributions to Marlene | Trustees made unnecessary principal distributions, failing to preserve trust for contingent remaindermen | Trust language prioritized spouse’s needs; many distributions reimbursed Marlene for Trust expenses and she contributed funds back | No breach: trial court’s factual findings supported; Trust prioritized spouse and distributions were justified |
| Whether evidence of plaintiff’s letters/emails was inadmissible character evidence | Evidence was improper character evidence and irrelevant | Evidence showed bias/prejudice toward Jason and was admissible to impeach credibility | No error: evidence admissible to show bias; plaintiff opened door and failed to preserve specific objection |
| Whether judge should have sua sponte recused after admitting evidence | Admission showed court bias; court should have recused | No extrajudicial-source bias shown; admission alone is not disqualifying | No recusal: plaintiff failed to identify extrajudicial bias; claim unpreserved and not plain error |
| Whether trial court could award attorney’s fees to Marlene in trustee capacity under §456.10‑1004 | Counterclaim filed only in individual capacity; Trust (not a party) already paid fees so no personal award warranted; award should have been to Trust | Trust cannot be a litigant; statute permits awarding fees to any party or from the trust by ordering payment to the trustee in her capacity as trustee | Affirmed: trustee may receive award in trustee capacity; justice and equity supported awarding reasonable fees to Marlene as trustee |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. 1976) (standard for appellate review of court-tried cases)
- Pearson v. Koster, 367 S.W.3d 36 (Mo. banc 2012) (deference to trial court credibility and factfindings)
- Klinkerfuss v. Cronin, 199 S.W.3d 831 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (trustee’s duty to protect trust in context of fee awards)
- O’Riley v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 412 S.W.3d 400 (Mo. App. W.D. 2013) (grantor intent controls trust construction)
- Mitchell v. Kardesch, 313 S.W.3d 667 (Mo. banc 2010) (bias, interest, and prejudice as proper impeachment subjects)