In re the Estate of Spencer, 417 S.W.3d 364

James and Mary Spencer created coordinated trusts (James Trust and Mary Trust); James was lifetime beneficiary; the Spencers’ five children were remainder beneficiaries.
Mary Trust created Marital Trusts and a Residuary Trust; after Mary’s death, James was lifetime beneficiary of certain trusts and the children (including appellant John T. Spencer) had contingent remainder interests in the Residuary Trust.
On March 14, 2011 (four days before a guardianship petition), James (grantor) and Betty (trustee) executed a Third Amendment to the James Trust and a contemporaneous Settlement Agreement reallocating payment responsibilities between the James and Mary trusts, altering post-death distributions to benefit Betty, and rendering the James Trust irrevocable.
Appellant filed a motion (declaratory relief) alleging James lacked capacity when executing the Third Amendment and Settlement Agreement and that the Amendment improperly favored Betty and harmed other remainder beneficiaries.
Betty moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing appellant had only a vague or speculative interest and was not a party to the Settlement Agreement; the probate court granted dismissal with prejudice.
The appellate court reversed, holding that appellant, as a future contingent beneficiary of the trust remainders, has standing to challenge the amendment and settlement; the case was remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge validity of Third Amendment and Settlement Agreement	Spencer: as a contingent remainder beneficiary of the James and Mary trusts, he is an interested person and may seek declaratory relief alleging incapacity and self-dealing	Betty: Spencer lacks standing because he alleges only speculative/vague harm and is not a party to the Settlement Agreement; assets at issue belong to company and benefit Betty	Court held Spencer has standing as a future contingent beneficiary to challenge trust administration and validity of the amendment and settlement
Whether dismissal should be with prejudice or allow amendment	Spencer: if pleading defects exist, he should be allowed to amend	Betty: dismissal appropriate due to lack of a justiciable interest	Court did not reach merits; because standing existed, dismissal with prejudice was reversed and remanded (denied as moot)

Lynch v. Lynch, 260 S.W.3d 834 (Mo. banc 2008) (standard of review for motion to dismiss)
Stabler v. Stabler, 326 S.W.3d 561 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (standing reviewed de novo)
Schumacher v. Schumacher, 308 S.W.3d 170 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) (person interested in trust may seek declaratory judgment)
Siefert v. Leonhardt, 975 S.W.2d 489 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998) (future contingent beneficiaries have standing to bring trust actions)
Engelsmann v. Holekamp, 402 S.W.2d 382 (Mo. 1966) (future beneficiaries may bring accounting actions to enforce trustee fiduciary duties)