Kelsey Alexander v. UMB Ban, NA, Trustee of the Darthea Stodder Harrison Trust Jodi Lea Stodder
2016 Mo. App. LEXIS 811
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Settlor executed a trust in Kansas in 1947 that paid her income for life, then to her son for life, and on the later death of Settlor or her son the trust would terminate and the corpus be distributed per stirpes to (1) the son’s lawful bodily issue, and if none, (2) Settlor’s brothers R.H. and F.G. Stodder, and if either brother were deceased the share of that brother “shall be paid over, distributed and delivered to said deceased brothers' children.”
- Settlor died in 1962; her son (the life tenant) died March 8, 2013 without bodily issue, which by the Trust’s terms terminated the trust and triggered distribution.
- Both brothers and all of the brothers’ children predeceased termination, but many grandchildren of those children (including appellant Alexander, granddaughter of F.G.) survive.
- Trustee UMB sought instructions; the Jackson County Probate Court refused to entertain its petition and later, after Alexander sued and served potential class members, entered a judgment denying Alexander’s requested construction without a hearing, concluding beneficiaries did not include more remote descendants.
- Alexander appealed, arguing the class of “brothers’ children” held descendible remainder interests (not conditioned on survival) that passed through their estates to their descendants; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the remainder to "Settlor's brothers' children" was descendible to the children's descendants when the children predeceased trust termination | Alexander: the remainder vested (or was alienable/descendible even if contingent) and was not conditioned on survival, so the children’s estates/intestacy pass their shares to descendants | Probate Court/implicit defendant: "children" meant only the brothers' immediate children who must survive termination; absent survivors the gift fails | Court held the remainder was descendible and not conditioned on survival; grandchildren/other descendants can take through the deceased children |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for probate bench trial)
- Baldwin v. Hambleton, 411 P.2d 626 (Kan. 1966) (class gift to "children" vests in existing children at instrument's effective date and is subject to opening for afterborns; presumption against disinheriting grandchildren)
- Tarpley v. Dill, 217 S.W.2d 369 (Mo. 1949) (contingent remainders generally alienable and not impliedly conditioned on survivorship where contingency relates to time of enjoyment rather than title transfer)
- In re Paulson's Estate, 363 P.2d 422 (Kan. 1961) (remainder to children of life tenants vests when children are born; if a child dies before distribution, his interest may pass to his children)
- Theodore Short Trust v. Fuller, 7 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999) (contrast: express survivorship language will create an inoperative class if no members survive)
- Lehmann v. Janes, 409 S.W.2d 647 (Mo. 1966) (contingent remainders are alienable; no implication of survivorship where settlor could have expressed it)