History
  • No items yet
midpage
413 S.W.3d 22
Mo. Ct. App.
2013
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiff Richard H. Goldstein filed a declaratory-judgment action under Rule 87.02 seeking construction of an in terrorem clause and alleging maladministration of two related trusts (the Samuel R. Goldstein Living Trust — SRG Trust — and the Richard H. Goldstein Irrevocable Trust — RHG Trust).
  • Bank of America, N.A. (U.S. Trust) is corporate trustee of the RHG Trust; Carol Jones is trustee/beneficiary of the SRG Trust; other individual defendants are beneficiaries or contingent remainder beneficiaries.
  • Bank and the individual defendants moved to transfer venue from Jackson County, asserting the Missouri Uniform Trust Code (MUTC) §456.2-204 governs venue for trust-administration proceedings and that the RHG Trust’s principal place of administration (and records) is Bank’s office in St. Louis City.
  • The trial court denied transfer without specific findings; relators sought writs of prohibition/mandamus and this court issued a preliminary writ and consolidated the matters.
  • The central factual record: affidavit from Bank’s officer locating RHG Trust administration and records in St. Louis City; no evidence connecting trust administration to Jackson County; unclear record on SRG Trust registration/administration.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Goldstein) Defendant's Argument (Relators) Held
Which venue statute governs: MUTC §456.2‑204 or general venue §508.010? Rule 87.02 declaratory action — general venue §508.010 governs; Jackson County proper under §508.010 based on defendant presence/business in Jackson County. MUTC §456.2‑204 specifically governs venue for "judicial proceedings involving trust administration," so its registry/administration rules control; RHG Trust is administrated in St. Louis City. MUTC §456.2‑204 controls; §508.010 is superseded for trust‑administration proceedings. Transfer required to St. Louis City probate division.
Whether Goldstein’s petition is a "judicial proceeding involving trust administration" under MUTC definitions The claim was brought under Rule 87.02, not the MUTC, so MUTC venue is inapplicable. The petition seeks interpretation, review of trustee actions, and relates to administration — falling squarely within MUTC’s enumerated list of judicial proceedings. Petition falls within MUTC’s scope (interpretation, review of trustee conduct); MUTC venue applies.
Whether venue in Jackson County is established by plaintiff’s submissions Plaintiff relied on evidence of Bank offices in Jackson County but produced no facts tying trust registration or administration to Jackson County. Relators produced affidavit locating RHG Trust administration/records in St. Louis City; plaintiff failed to meet burden to show venue proper in Jackson County. Plaintiff failed to meet burden; no basis for venue in Jackson County.
Effect of Rule 87.02(b) on venue choice Rule 87.02(b) allows declaratory relief by interested persons and has been held to permit probate or circuit filing, implying general venue could apply. Rule 87.02(b) addresses who may sue, not venue; it does not displace the MUTC venue rules for trust‑administration proceedings. Rule 87.02(b) does not override MUTC venue; jurisdiction and venue are separate.

Key Cases Cited

  • State ex rel. Mo. Pub. Defender Comm’n v. Waters, 370 S.W.3d 592 (Mo. banc 2012) (standards for writ of prohibition)
  • State ex rel. Mo. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. Joyce, 258 S.W.3d 58 (Mo. banc 2008) (appellate prohibition where circuit court erroneously denied transfer)
  • Igoe v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus. Relations, 152 S.W.3d 284 (Mo. banc 2005) (plaintiff must allege facts bringing claim within applicable venue statute)
  • State ex rel. McDonald’s Corp. v. Midkiff, 226 S.W.3d 119 (Mo. banc 2007) (venue is determined solely by statute)
  • State ex rel. Riordan v. Dierker, 956 S.W.2d 258 (Mo. banc 1997) (harmonizing specific venue statutes)
  • Lynch v. Lynch, 260 S.W.3d 834 (Mo. banc 2008) (Rule 87.02 declaratory actions may be brought in probate or circuit court; does not address venue)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: State ex rel. Bank of America N.A. v. Kanatzar
Court Name: Missouri Court of Appeals
Date Published: Oct 29, 2013
Citations: 413 S.W.3d 22; 2013 WL 5787656; 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 1281; Nos. WD 76371, WD 76374
Docket Number: Nos. WD 76371, WD 76374
Court Abbreviation: Mo. Ct. App.
Log In
    State ex rel. Bank of America N.A. v. Kanatzar, 413 S.W.3d 22