Flynn v. Scott, 72965

CourtCourt of Appeal of Missouri (US)
Citation969 S.W.2d 260
PartiesMichael W. FLYNN, Appellant, v. Stephen SCOTT, David Scott, and Abigail Scott, Respondents.
Docket NumberNo. 72965,72965
Decision Date12 May 1998

Page 260

969 S.W.2d 260
Michael W. FLYNN, Appellant,
Stephen SCOTT, David Scott, and Abigail Scott, Respondents.
No. 72965.
Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division Two.
May 12, 1998.

Page 261

Robert E. Trame, St. Louis, for appellant.

Fairfax Jones, St. Louis, for respondents Stephen and David Scott.

Edward M. Roth, St. Louis, for respondent Abigail Scott.

RHODES RUSSELL, Presiding Judge.

Michael W. Flynn, purported guardian and conservator ("guardian"), appeals from a judgment of the trial court denying his motion to reopen a guardianship and conservatorship proceeding in order to tax his fees as costs against the relatives of Wilmot Harry Scott ("ward") who had initiated the proceeding. We affirm in that the appointment of guardian was void as the court lacked jurisdiction due to a failure to serve ward personally. No statutory authorization exists for compensation of an unauthorized guardian of a ward.

This is the third appeal by the parties over issues in this guardianship. The proceedings began in 1991 and 1992 when ward's two sons and wife filed two separate petitions requesting the appointment of a guardian and conservator for ward. The court found ward was incapacitated both physically and mentally, and because of dissension among family members, appointed guardian as ward's guardian, conservator, and attorney. Ward's wife and daughter moved the court to declare the guardianship proceeding void in that ward was never personally served and, therefore, the court never acquired jurisdiction over him. The trial court denied the motion, and wife and daughter appealed. This court reversed the judgment holding that the guardianship proceeding was void for lack of jurisdiction for failure to comply with section 475.075.2 RSMo 1986. Scott v. Scott, 882 S.W.2d 295 (Mo.App.1994) ("Scott I ").

While Scott I was pending, ward died. Guardian filed a claim against ward's estate for $30,941.50 for his services as guardian and conservator. Guardian's claim against the estate was allowed in the amount of $18,000. Guardian, wife, and daughter appealed. This court again reversed, holding that the judgment allowing guardian's claim was void for lack of jurisdiction. In re the Matter of the Estate of Scott, 932 S.W.2d 413 (Mo.App.1996) ("Scott II ").

Guardian thereafter filed a motion to reopen the guardianship proceeding in order to tax his fees as costs to the ward's family members, personally, who petitioned for the

Page 262


To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Dowaliby v. Chambless, 3320.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • March 19, 2001
    ...of the common law and therefore must be strictly construed to allow only the recovery of costs and not attorney's fees); Flynn v. Scott, 969 S.W.2d 260 (Mo.Ct.App.1998) (holding attorney was not entitled to recover fees absent statutory authorization); In re Guardianship of the Person & Est......
  • State v. Dixon, WD 81592
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • August 20, 2019
    ...procedures were not impermissibly suggestive and admission of the voice identification was supported by sufficient evidence. Dixon , 969 S.W.2d at 260. Dixon appeals.18 AnalysisDixon raises four points on appeal. He claims that the motion court erred in (1) admitting testimony regarding the......

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