Massey v. Massey
464 S.W.3d 577
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Ina Wade (Grantor/Trustee) created a revocable living trust in 1979 conveying her 248-acre farm; the trust allowed amendment and named successor trustees and beneficiaries (Dearl and Lyle or their descendants).
- Ina executed formal, attorney-prepared, notarized amendments in 1997 and April 11, 2005 (both recorded); the 2005 amendment left the Farm within the Trust per its terms (half to Dearl, half to Lyle’s descendants).
- After 2007, multiple informal handwritten notes and some oral statements by Ina (found in various notebooks) expressed that she “want[ed] Jim/Jim Massey to have my farm” and named other informal bequests; some checks in 2008 reflect $500 gifts mentioned in notes.
- James sued for a declaratory judgment that Ina amended the Trust by her oral statements and written memoranda, seeking distribution of the Farm to him; Don (successor trustee) counterclaimed seeking declaration that no amendment occurred; Shane Hurst (successor of Dearl) appealed the trial court’s judgment that the Trust was amended.
- The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Ina’s oral statements and written memoranda (several exhibits) manifested intent to amend the Trust to give the Farm to James and ordered distribution; the court of appeals reversed on weight-of-the-evidence grounds and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (James) | Defendant's Argument (Hurst/Don) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ina’s oral statements and handwritten memoranda constituted a valid amendment to her revocable trust under §456.6-602.3(2) | The notes and oral statements (taken together) clearly and convincingly manifest Ina’s intent to amend the trust and give the Farm outright to James | The writings are informal, precatory (use of “want”/“wish”), inconsistent with prior formal trust documents, lack amendment language, and lack indicia that Ina intended any particular note to effect an amendment; evidence weighs against finding an amendment | Reversed: trial court’s finding was against the weight of the evidence — the probative value of the informal writings and oral statements did not reasonably support an inference that Ina intended them to amend the trust |
| Whether extrinsic evidence (Ina’s oral statements) can supply intent to make an informal writing operate as a trust amendment | Oral statements show settlor’s intent and corroborate the writings as an amendment | Oral statements did not reference specific writings or indicate she intended those writings to function as formal amendments; they were admitted only to show state of mind and were insufficient | Court held extrinsic oral statements did not establish that Ina intended any particular writing to amend the trust |
| Whether informal, repeated notebook entries over time can collectively constitute an amendment when no single document is identified | The aggregate of similar notes over a multi-year span manifests settlor’s intent to change the trust | There is no evidence of a required number or a triggering event; aggregation is arbitrary and weaker than a single identifiable document | Court found aggregation insufficient — no direct evidence that Ina intended any particular or cumulative set of notes to amend the trust |
| Whether prior formal amendments and settlor’s estate‑planning sophistication affect weight of informal writings | Prior amendments show settlor knew how to amend and could have used formal methods but intended these notes to effect change | Prior formal amendments and advice from tax preparer to use an attorney diminish the probative value of informal notes | Court relied on this reasoning: prior formal amendments and settlor’s habits weigh against inferring an intent to amend by informal notes |
Key Cases Cited
- Rouner v. Wise, 446 S.W.3d 242 (Mo. banc 2014) (a later informal writing did not amend a trust where it lacked amendment language and departed from the trust terms)
- Pearson v. Roster, 367 S.W.3d 36 (Mo. banc 2012) (appellate deference to trial court credibility findings on contested facts)
- Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. banc 2014) (explains against-the-weight-of-the-evidence standard and when appellate courts may overturn)
- White v. Director of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (distinguishes substantial evidence from weight of the evidence and explains contested vs uncontested evidence)
- Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. App. 2010) (sets out the four-step framework for an against-the-weight analysis)