Kelsey Alexander v. UMB Bank, N.A. As Trustee
WD83907
| Mo. Ct. App. | Jul 20, 2021Background:
- 1947 irrevocable trust (DSH Trust) created; UMB Bank is trustee. Trust paid income to Darthea, then to her son William; on their deaths remainder to children of Darthea’s brothers R.H. and F.G.
- William died in 2013 without issue; many named children predeceased him but left grandchildren (including appellant Kelsey Alexander) who claimed remainder shares.
- Missouri probate initially declined to construe the trust; this court reversed in Alexander v. UMB Bank, NA, finding the remainder descendible and remanding to identify the class and distribute the trust.
- On remand beneficiaries were identified into four equal lines; a dispute arose over whether Anne McEwen’s one-quarter share should pass to her ASM Trust (benefitting Alexander) or to Anne’s estate/intestacy.
- Alexander sought reimbursement from the trust of $252,866.45 in attorney’s fees and expenses she incurred litigating distribution; the probate commissioner reviewed invoices in camera and awarded $139,958.15, denying portions as excessive or for Alexander’s sole benefit (including travel and Arkansas counsel fees). Alexander appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court improperly considered the trust’s size when awarding fees | Alexander: court should focus on nature/importance of subject, not trust size | UMB: trust value is a relevant equity consideration when fees are sought from trust assets | Court: considering trust size was appropriate; award not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion |
| Whether the common-fund doctrine required full reimbursement to Alexander | Alexander: her work produced a common fund; she should recover all fees from the trust | UMB: only fees that benefited all beneficiaries qualify; court must allocate accordingly | Court: applied common-fund principle and reimbursed only fees that benefitted the entire trust |
| Whether post-appeal and fee-application fees were recoverable | Alexander: post-appeal work and fee-application time were reasonable and benefited trust | UMB: much post-appeal work was excessive or related solely to Alexander’s pursuit of fees | Court: awarded $40,000 for post-appeal fees as reasonable; denied $34,504 billed to prepare/prosecute fee petition |
| Whether Arkansas counsel fees and Alexander’s travel expenses should be paid from the trust | Alexander: those costs were necessary to prosecute the case and benefited all beneficiaries | UMB: those costs primarily advanced Alexander’s personal interests (e.g., securing ASM Trust benefit) and were unnecessary | Court: denied Arkansas counsel fees and travel expenses as they benefitted only Alexander and were unnecessary to the trust’s administration |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. UMB Bank, NA, 497 S.W.3d 323 (Mo. App. 2016) (prior appellate ruling that remainder interests were descendible and remanding for identification/distribution of beneficiaries)
- Trustees of Clayton Terrace Subdivision v. 6 Clayton Terrace, LLC, 585 S.W.3d 269 (Mo. banc 2019) (discussion of common-fund recovery where multiple beneficiaries benefit)
- DeWalt v. Davidson Surface Air, 449 S.W.3d 401 (Mo. App. 2014) (fee-award principles in MHRA/civil-rights context; court distinguishes its relevance here)
- Rouner v. Wise, 446 S.W.3d 242 (Mo. banc 2014) (standard: appellate review of attorney-fee awards is for abuse of discretion)
- Lehman v. Bank of Am., N.A., 427 S.W.3d 315 (Mo. App. 2014) (statute granting discretion to award fees does not mandate award)
- Green v. Plaza in Clayton Condo. Ass’n, 410 S.W.3d 272 (Mo. App. 2013) (trial court considered expert on reasonableness of attorney fees)