In the Estate of ROSETTA F. KEEN, LOUIE R. KEEN v. AMBER J. WOLFE, individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Rosetta F. Keen, and CYNTHIA A. KEEN, Respondents-Respondents.
488 S.W.3d 73
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Decedent Rosetta Keen executed a will (nominating daughter Amber as personal representative) that devised most residual assets to a revocable trust (trust dated 2006, restated April 4, 2011) and included a no-contest clause; the will also directed tangible personal property to be split among her three children (Louie, Cynthia, Amber).
- The trust named Amber successor trustee, directed retention/operation of farm assets for 12 years, contained a provision (B.2(b)) conveying a specific tract to Amber, and included a separate no-contest clause forbidding contests or claims for amounts larger than provided.
- Rosetta held a pay-on-death (POD) checking account (identified as Rosetta d/b/a 4‑K Farms) with Amber designated POD beneficiary; Amber used that account to pay bills after Rosetta’s death and withdrew the remaining balance.
- Amber, as personal representative, filed a claim against the estate seeking reimbursement (~$46,288.72) for payments she made for Rosetta’s last illness, funeral, and farm/household expenses; the administrator ad litem and trial court approved the claim.
- Amber filed two trust actions: (1) seeking authority to sell uneconomic farm parcels and to use a different accounting basis; (2) seeking reformation of B.2(b) (correcting scrivener’s error to convey different acreage/section to Amber). Louie litigated and lost in the second trust case; that judgment rejected his counterclaim that no-contest clauses were violated.
- The probate court later approved final settlement/distribution and allowed payment of appellate attorneys’ fees (approximately $22,000) to counsel for Amber; Louie appealed, raising nine points distilled into four main contentions.
Issues
| Issue | Louie’s Argument | Amber/Cynthia’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amber/Cynthia violated the will/trust no-contest clauses by (a) bringing the trust actions (sale/accounting changes) and (b) seeking reformation of B.2(b) | Louie: filing the trust suits and consenting to relief violated no-contest clauses and should forfeit their inheritances | Respondents: the trust-court judgment disposed of those claims; the trust litigation did not trigger the in terrorem clauses as adjudicated | Court: Collateral estoppel bars relitigation—trust judgment was final; no-contest challenges previously decided and thus fail. |
| Whether Amber was required to inventory the POD bank account as estate property | Louie: POD account was property owned or possessed by Rosetta at death and should have been inventoried under §473.233 | Respondents: POD account transferred by operation of law to beneficiary under §362.471 and is non‑probate property, so it need not be inventoried as estate property | Court: POD account passed to Amber by operation of law; no inventory requirement under §473.233 for non‑probate POD transfer; point denied. |
| Whether the estate should have disallowed Amber’s ~$46,288.72 reimbursement claim | Louie: expenses were not estate liabilities, were paid post‑mortem from the POD account, or were volunteer payments not following probate claims procedure | Respondents: payments reflected Rosetta’s liabilities; Amber succeeded to creditors’ rights when she paid and properly filed the claim; some items were acknowledged by Louie as Rosetta’s obligations | Court: substantial evidence that many items were Rosetta’s debts, Amber succeeded to creditors’ rights by paying them, and the claim was allowable; point denied. |
| Whether appellate attorney fees (≈$22,041) should have been paid from the estate | Louie: fees did not benefit the estate as a whole and chiefly aided individual claimants | Respondents: fees were incurred defending repeated appeals and trust/estate litigation; probate court may allow reasonable administration expenses or equitable fees | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion—fees addressed complicated, repeated litigation; equitable balancing of benefits supported allowance under the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Carnahan, 370 S.W.3d 637 (Mo. 2012) (issue preclusion requires full and fair litigation, issue essential to earlier judgment, and a final binding prior judgment)
- Sexton v. Jenkins & Assocs., Inc., 152 S.W.3d 270 (Mo. 2004) (explaining requirements for collateral estoppel/issue preclusion)
- Cook v. Barnard, 100 S.W.3d 924 (Mo. App. 2003) (nonprobate POD/joint accounts pass by operation of law and are not estate assets to be inventoried)
- In re Estate of Murray, 682 S.W.2d 857 (Mo. App. 1984) (attorney fees for beneficiaries may be awarded equitably when beneficial to estate or under unusual circumstances)
- Klinkerfuss v. Cronin, 289 S.W.3d 607 (Mo. App. 2009) (trial court has expertise and discretion in awarding appellate attorney fees)
- In re Estate of Weddle, 84 S.W.3d 144 (Mo. App. 2002) (personal representative bears burden to prove estate liability for amounts paid on claims)