Dugan, In re

Decision Date31 December 1957
Docket NumberNo. 7636,7636
Citation309 S.W.2d 145
PartiesIn the Matter of Jerry Lee DUGAN, Joseph Wayne Dugan and James Thomas Dugan, Minors. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Movant-Appellant, v. Joel DAVIS, Public Administrator of Jasper County, Missouri, Guardian and Curater, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

Harold L. Harvey, R. W. Yost, St. Louis, McReynolds, Flanigan & Flanigan, John H. Flanigan, Carthage, for appellant.

Emerson Foulke, Joplin, for respondent.

RUARK, Judge.

This, companion to In re Dugan's Estate, Mo.App., 309 S.W.2d 137, is an appeal from the judgment of the circuit court dismissing an appeal from the probate court, which had refused to revoke the appointment of a guardian for minor children.

On March 30, 1956, Joel Davis, public administrator, filed with the Probate Court of Jasper County his 'application for appointment as guardian and curator of minors,' in words as follows:

'Your undersigned, Joel Davis, Public Administrator of Jasper County, Missouri, respectfully represents that Jerry Lee Dugan of the age of 10 years, Joseph Wayne Dugan of the age of 12 years and James Thomas Dugan of the age of 16 years, are minors who have no domicile in the State of Missouri, but who have been found and are now present in the County of Jasper and State of Missouri.

'Your petitioner further represents to the court that the parents of said children are non-residents of the State of Missouri and that none of said minors have a qualified guardian and that your petitioner has been selected to serve as guardian herein.

'Your petitioner further states that each of said minors has a claim or choses in action against the Missouri-Pacific Railroad Company for damages of an indefinite value at the present time until the said claim has been prosecuted and liquidated.

'Your petitioner further states that he is the duly elected, qualified and acting Public Administrator of Jasper County, Missouri, and that he is qualified in law to become the guardian of such minors, and respectfully requests that he be appointed as such guardian.

'Joel Davis

'Joel Davis, Public Administrator'

On the same day the court entered its order, which is as follows:

'Now on this day comes Joel Davis, of Jasper County, Missouri and files his application of appointment as guardian of the person and estate of Jerry Lee Dugan, Joseph Wayne Dugan, and James Thomas Dugan, minors.

'Therefore it appearing to the court that said minors are in need of a guardian, and after an examination of said application of Joel Davis, and he being a suitable and proper person, it is ordered that he be appointed guardian of their estate and he is ordered to administer the same according to law under his official bond as Public Administrator.'

Thereafter the court issued the certificate of appointment, and inventory was filed for each of such minors. Such inventories showed no real estate and no personal property 'except an action for damages for personal injuries against the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company which resulted from an accident occurring on or about the 6th day of September, 1955.' A contract dated March 30, providing for the employment of one James A. Dooley as attorney to represent them in an action for damages against the Missouri Pacific on account of personal injuries suffered in an accident which occurred on September 6, 1955, at Chetopa, Kansas, was presented to the court and by it approved.

On September 27, 1956, the Missouri Pacific filed its 'motion to revoke appointment of guardian and curator.' This motion challenged the validity of the appointment on the ground (1) the minors were residents of Kansas and had no estate in Missouri; (2) the application was insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the court because of failure to comply with the requirements of section 475.060, V.A.M.S., Laws of 1955, section 293, page 475; (3) the court was without jurisdiction under section 473.743, R.S.Mo., V.A.M.S.; (4) the statement that said minors 'have been found and are now present in the County of Jasper' was an effort to confer jurisdiction under section 475.035, V.A.M.S., Laws of 1955, section 288, page 473, which is only a venue statute. The motion then recited that Joel Davis, public administrator, under his supposed authority because of the appointment aforesaid, had filed an action against movant to recover damages, and that movant had an interest for such reason. This motion being overruled in the probate court, the Missouri Pacific appealed to the circuit court, where such appeal was eventually dismissed on respondent's motion, for the stated reason that appellant 'is not an interested person authorized to appeal from the order and has no standing in court.' From this judgment of dismissal the Missouri Pacific appeals to this court.

As stated by respondent, the central question in the case is whether appellant has an interest which gives it standing in court and the right to appeal. This question we discussed in In the Matter of the Estate of Jerrold William Dugan, supra. It seems to us that the same principles apply, and we therefore hold that appellant has such interest.

But an examination of the record convinces us that in this case it would be useless to remand for any further proceedings except to revoke the letters, because in our opinion the appointment is void on the face of the record.

Section 475.060, V.A.M.S., Laws of 1955, section 293, page 475, provides what must be contained in a petition for the appointment of a guardian. It must state (1) the name, age, domicile, actual place of residence, and post office address of the minor; (2) the estimated value of the minor's real and personal property; (3) if the minor is a nonresident, the county where the property is located; (4) the names and addresses of the parents and whether they are living or dead; (5) the name and address of the spouse of the minor; (6) the name and address of the person having custody of the person; (7) the name and address of any guardian; (8) if appointment is sought for a natural person other than the public administrator, the names and addresses of any wards for whom such person is guardian; and (9) the reasons why the appointment of guardian is sought. Section 475.070, Laws of 1955, section 296, page 476, provides that before appointing a guardian of minor notice of the petition shall be (unless waived) served upon (1) the minor if over fourteen years old and (2) the parents of the minor.

The power to appoint guardians is purely statutory. It must be exercised in the manner prescribed, and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • K.R. v. A.L.S. (In re A.L.R.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • July 26, 2016
    ...S.W.2d 514, 515 (Mo. App. W.D. 1992) (holding that "'[t]he power to appoint guardians is purely statutory'" (quoting In re Dugan, 309 S.W.2d 145, 148-49 (Mo. App. 1957))). Letters of guardianship of the person of a minor may be granted:(1) Where the minor has no parent living;(2) Where the ......
  • In re Duvall
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • September 27, 2005
    ...of section 472.080.1, these pleading requirements have been held to be subject-matter jurisdictional in nature. See In re Dugan, 309 S.W.2d 145, 148-49 (Mo.App. S.D.1957); In re Werner, 737 S.W.2d 761, 763-65 (Mo.App. W.D.1987); In re Flair, 44 S.W.3d 444, 449, 452-53 (Mo.App. Turning first......
  • Williams v. Williams
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 16, 2019
    ...location and estimated values of the incapacitated person’s property and consents of those who are willing to serve."In In re Dugan , 309 S.W.2d 145 (Mo. App. 1957) (relied upon by Rosenauer), the Court addressed an application for guardianship that was "so lacking in compliance with sectio......
  • Rosenauer v. Williams (In re Williams)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • April 16, 2019
    ...location and estimated values of the incapacitated person's property and consents of those who are willing to serve." In In re Dugan, 309 S.W.2d 145 (Mo. App. 1957) (relied upon by Rosenauer), the Court addressed an application for guardianship that was "so lacking in compliance with sectio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT