Rouner v. Wise, 2014 Mo. LEXIS 214

Wise and Conklin Children became co-trustees after Dr. Conklin’s 2009 death; Stepchildren sue in three counts seeking beneficiary status, distribution, and no-contest relief.
The 1996 Trust Agreement and Pour-Over Will designate beneficiaries as Dr. Conklin’s natural/adopted children and provide discretionary support, with the Children named as co-trustees; Stepchildren were not adopted and are not beneficiaries under the 1996 terms.
The 1996 Agreement reserves Dr. Conklin’s power to amend the trust, with amendment required to be in writing delivered to the trustee; no explicit mention of the Stepchildren in the core documents.
On November 1, 2002, Dr. and Mrs. Conklin wrote a handwritten letter (2002 Letter) detailing asset dispositions and distributions; addressed to four children and not delivered to them or attached to the Trust papers; later found unopened in a car and not incorporated into the Trust.
Trial court found the 2002 Letter ambiguous and, applying the governing law, held it was conditional and never operated as an amendment; it ordered fee reimbursement to the Children from Trust assets.
The Stepchildren appeal, arguing the letter unambiguously amended the Trust; the Court of Appeals affirms on the alternative ground that Dr. Conklin lacked intent to amend the Trust, so no amendment occurred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the 2002 Letter amend the Trust unambiguously?	Stepchildren—letter clearly amends the Trust to add beneficiaries and alter distributions.	Children—no explicit amendment language; letter conditional and not delivered; not an operative amendment.	Not proven; letter did not clearly amend the Trust.
May extrinsic evidence be used to determine Dr. Conklin’s intent regarding amendment?	Stepchildren—extrinsic evidence should show intent to amend.	Children—extrinsic evidence cannot contradict unambiguous terms and should be limited; however, evidence can inform intent.	Extrinsic evidence properly considered but did not prove intent to amend.
Did Dr. Conklin have authority to amend and did he intend to exercise it via the 2002 Letter?	Stepchildren—letter is valid amendment; authority exists and intent shown in writing.	Children—authority exists, but intent to amend via this letter is not shown; must be clear and convincing.	Stepchildren failed to prove intent to amend; authority alone insufficient.
Are the Children liable for no-contest challenges to the Trust amendment?	Stepchildren—if amendment valid, contests would violate no-contest clause.	Children—no valid amendment shown; no- contest clause not violated.	No- contest clause not violated given lack of proven amendment.

Obermeyer v. Bank of Am., N.A., 140 S.W.3d 18 (Mo. banc 2004) (ambiguity and interpretation of documents in trust context)
Estate of Boder, 850 S.W.2d 76 (Mo. banc 1993) (trust construction and extrinsic evidence principles)
Helmer v. Foss, 646 S.W.2d 738 (Mo. banc 1983) (principles of interpreting trusts and intent)
American Eagle Waste Indus., LLC v. St. Louis County, 379 S.W.3d 813 (Mo. banc 2012) (appellate review and affirming correct result despite reasoning)
First Nat’l Bank of Kansas City v. Hyde, 363 S.W.2d 647 (Mo.1962) (extrinsic evidence and trust interpretation framework)
Atlantic Nat’l Bank of Jacksonville v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 211 S.W.2d 2 (Mo.1948) (trust amendment and intent requirements)
Platt v. Huegel, 32 S.W.2d 605 (Mo.1930) (express trusts may be proven by acts and surrounding circumstances)
Mercantile Trust Co. v. RugeN, 298 S.W.2d 387 (Mo.1957) (intent to amend must be shown by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Soulard’s Estate, 43 S.W.617 (Mo.1897) (no specific words required to declare a trust; intent matters)