Estate of Ginn v. Almond
2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1497
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Ginn died leaving a will and a residuary estate; Nancy Almond was appointed personal representative and filed an amended six-count petition for will construction to determine who should pay estate taxes.
- Ginn's grandchildren, Carrie Almond, Callie Almond, Carl Almond, and Christopher Almond, answered and moved for judgment on the pleadings against the claim of equitable apportionment.
- The circuit court granted the grandchildren's motion, holding Ginn's intent was that estate taxes be paid from the residuary estate, not by equitable apportionment.
- Nancy Almond appealed, arguing (i) the motion attached matters outside the petition and (ii) equitable apportionment should apply since the will did not express clear tax payment burden.
- The issue before the court was whether the tax-payment question is a proper subject for a final, appealable order under Missouri's §472.160.1, or if the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court ultimately dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, stating the judgment was not a final, appealable order and did not fall within the enumerated subsections of §472.160.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a final, appealable judgment under §472.160.1? | Almond argues the circuit court's denial of equitable apportionment is appealable. | Grandchildren contend the order is interlocutory and not subject to appeal. | No final, appealable judgment; appeal dismissed. |
| Does §472.160.1 allow review of a will-construction decision on equitable apportionment of estate taxes? | Almond contends the tax issue falls within §472.160.1(3) or (13). | Grandchildren argue the action is not an apportionment case and §472.160.1 does not apply. | Section 472.160.1 does not apply; issue not within enumerated categories. |
| Should the appellate court address whether equitable apportionment applies to estate taxes despite lack of finality? | Almond seeks merits on apportionment. | Grandchildren urge dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. | Court declines merits; dismisses for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Erwin, 611 S.W.2d 564 (Mo.App.1981) (will construction and finality considerations)
- In re Estate of Rau, 708 S.W.2d 746 (Mo.App.1986) (apportionment-like issues in probate appeals kept within appellate review)
- Standley v. Standley (In the Estate of Standley), 204 S.W.3d 745 (Mo.App.2006) (expedited probate appeals; finality principles; §472.160 scope)
- Jones v. State, 307 S.W.3d 699 (Mo.App.2010) (jurisdictional limits; appealability of interlocutory orders)
- In re Estate of Cohen v. Crown, 954 S.W.2d 409 (Mo.App.1997) (will construction and apportionment of taxes)