In the Interest of R.C.H.
419 S.W.3d 158
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- M.H. and D.H., paternal grandparents of minor R.C.H., appealed a probate court order dismissing their petition to remove R.C.H.'s guardian.
- R.C.H. was guardianship-placed with Respondent, his maternal great-grandmother, in 2009; Appellants were not parties to that guardianship petition.
- In 2012 Appellants sought removal of the guardian and appointment of a successor guardian; Respondent moved to dismiss for lack of standing.
- Probate court dismissed the petition, finding Appellants not “interested persons” under §472.010(15) and lacking rights to P”the person of [R.C.H.]” to pursue the petition.
- Appellants appealed, but the court granted Respondent’s motion to dismiss on standing grounds and did not reach merits.
- On appeal, the court deems standing a threshold issue and reviews de novo, concluding Appellants lack vested financial interest in R.C.H.’s estate to qualify as “interested persons.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellants have standing to appeal as interested persons | Quigless argues they are interested persons under §472.010(15) due to guardianship rights. | Respondent argues Appellants lack a vested financial interest and are not within §472.010(15). | Appellants lack standing; dismissed for lack of interested-person status. |
| Whether failure to hold an evidentiary hearing affects standing | Appellants claim absence of hearing supports standing to review removal petition. | Respondent asserts hearing absence does not create standing for non-interested parties. | No standing created by failure to grant an evidentiary hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whittaker, 261 S.W.3d 615 (Mo.App. E.D. 2008) (standing to appeal is a threshold de novo issue; need interested-person status)
- Juppier, 81 S.W.3d 699 (Mo.App. E.D. 2002) (guardianship appeals require vested financial interest to have standing)
- Walker, 875 S.W.2d 147 (Mo.App. E.D. 1994) (extension of standing to purely sentimental interests is disfavored)
- Sturmfels, 261 S.W.3d 559 (Mo.App. E.D. 2008) (statutory framework governs appropriateness of applying probate code to guardianships)
- Baldwin, 785 S.W.2d 547 (Mo. Banc 1990) (statutes governing appeals from probate courts should be liberally construed)