UMB Bank v. Richard Guerin, 89 F.4th 1047

Thomas Hart Benton’s family trust, managed by UMB Bank, comprised valuable artworks and other assets for the benefit of his daughter, Jessie, and her children.
UMB became the sole trustee in 1999. In 2019, after accusations of mismanagement by the beneficiaries, UMB resigned as trustee while state probate litigation (the "Probate case") was ongoing.
UMB then sued Jessie and her children in federal court, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) stemming from their campaign related to the Trust.
UMB’s allegations centered on Defendants’ communications (including to the media and in court) which UMB claimed constituted a pattern of racketeering activity (mail, wire, and bank fraud).
The district court dismissed UMB’s RICO claim for failure to state a claim, and denied UMB leave to amend because amendment would be futile and prejudicial.
UMB appealed these rulings to the Eighth Circuit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Defendants’ conduct constituted predicate acts of mail, wire, or bank fraud under RICO	UMB: Defendants’ campaign (including internal, litigation, and media communications) to pressure UMB was fraudulent and part of a scheme	Defendants: Sought Trust records and challenged UMB in court; actions were normal, not fraudulent; litigation activity should not be basis for RICO	Not mail, wire, or bank fraud—normal civil dispute, not criminal fraud, except possibly certain media statements
Whether Defendants’ statements to news media could serve as RICO predicate acts	UMB: False media statements in furtherance of fraudulent scheme	Defendants: At most, defamation, not racketeering	May qualify as predicate acts, but insufficient to establish a pattern
Whether alleged acts formed a "pattern of racketeering activity" as required by RICO	UMB: Conduct and statements spanned years, showing continuity	Defendants: Acts were limited, short-term, about discrete event (Probate case)	No pattern—acts too few, too closely timed, no threat of continuity
Whether district court erred denying post-judgment amendment to complaint	UMB: Should have been allowed to amend after dismissal	Defendants: Amendment would be futile and unduly prejudicial	No error—amendment both untimely and futile

Craig Outdoor Advert., Inc. v. Viacom Outdoor, Inc., 528 F.3d 1001 (8th Cir. 2008) (failure on any RICO element defeats claim, and ordinary civil disputes should not be converted into RICO cases)
Crest Constr. II, Inc. v. Doe, 660 F.3d 346 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing motions to dismiss and particularity required for fraud pleadings)
H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989) (explains RICO "pattern" requirement—relatedness and continuity)
Wisdom v. First Midwest Bank, of Poplar Bluff, 167 F.3d 402 (8th Cir. 1999) (requirements for mail and wire fraud as RICO predicates)