Shea v. Gaither
2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 4
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Doris Staats established the Doris V. Staats Lifetime Trust in 2004, naming nephews Donald Shea and David Shea as residuary beneficiaries.
- Mary Gaither and her husband Donald became trustees in May 2007, with the trust then valued around $5,000,000.
- In June 2007, amendments were purportedly executed, including Amendment to Article One — Exhibit A, which gave Gaither Farm to the trustees and Beatty Farm to Gaither and others.
- November 2007: Donald Gaither, as trustee, conveyed the Beatty Farm to Mary Gaither and nine others; Doris Staats died a month later.
- Beneficiaries sued the trustees and others for removal, accounting, damages for breach of loyalty, and declaratory judgments voiding amendments and the Beatty Farm conveyance; a consent judgment in July 2010 dismissed several claims and set a final accounting, while the challenge to the amendment’s validity remained pending.
- The trial court labeled the final accounting judgment as final for appeal under Section 512.020 RSMo, but this Court held the judgment was not final due to unresolved claims and improper Rule 74.01(b) certification, requiring dismissal of the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the final accounting judgment was a final, appealable judgment. | Beneficiaries contend the final accounting resolved fewer than all claims and left pending the amendment validity. | Trustees argue the judgment was final for appeal under Rule 74.01(b). | Not final; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Whether the purported Rule 74.01(b) certification was proper. | Certification was inappropriate because not all remedies on a single claim were resolved. | Certification was proper since at least one claim was resolved. | Improper certification; judgment not final. |
| Whether the pending action on the Amendment to Article One — Exhibit A affects finality. | Amendment validity and farm dispositions remain unresolved and control finality. | Resolution of the amendment is a future matter; final accounting should be final. | Pending amendment issue prevents finality of judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ruestman v. Ruestman, 69 S.W.3d 525 (Mo.App. S.D. 2002) (judgment not final unless expressly designated when fewer than all issues are resolved)
- In re Estate of Ginn, 323 S.W.3d 860 (Mo.App. W.D. 2010) (Rule 74.01(b) certification requires no just reason for delay with explicit designation)
- In re Trust of Bornefeld, 36 S.W.3d 424 (Mo.App. E.D. 2001) (judgment requiring external proof to dispose of disputed issues is not final)
- Comm. for Educ. Equal. v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446 (Mo. Banc. 1994) (final judgment framework for review in multi-claim actions)
- Columbia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Epstein, 200 S.W.3d 547 (Mo.App. E.D. 2006) (finality determination when multiple claims or remedies present)