In re Estate of Miller

Decision Date23 September 2008
Docket NumberNo. ED 90722.,ED 90722.
PartiesIn the Matter of the ESTATE OF Robert C. MILLER.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
264 S.W.3d 664
In the Matter of the ESTATE OF Robert C. MILLER.
No. ED 90722.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
September 23, 2008.

[264 S.W.3d 665]

David B. Summers, Benjamin J. Gray, Cape Girardeau, MO, for appellant.

Daniel H. Rau, Cape Girardeau, MO, for respondent.

OPINION

GLENN A. NORTON, Judge.


Rebecca S. Aubuchon, personal representative of the Estate of Robert C. Miller, appeals from the trial court's probate order allowing Jacqueline A. Bollinger's ("Wife") 2007 claim against the Estate in the amount of $16,531.60 and classifying it as a "Class No. 9" claim. Wife's 2007 claim against the Estate was for child support Robert C. Miller ("Husband") failed to pay her pursuant to the terms of the parties' 1979 divorce decree (the "1979 child support judgment"). We reverse and remand.

I. BACKGROUND

Wife and Husband's marriage was dissolved on March 27, 1979, in the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County, Missouri. One child, Mary Michelle Miller ("Daughter"), was born of the marriage on May 25, 1970. It is undisputed that the 1979 child support judgment obligated Husband to pay child support to Wife in the amount of $180.00 per month until Daughter turned twenty-one years old in May 1991. Each monthly child support payment was due by the 10th day of each month.

Husband died on January 31, 2007. Thereafter, the trial court appointed Aubuchon personal representative of the Estate. On June 29, 2007, Wife filed a $16,531.60 claim against the Estate for child support Husband failed to pay her pursuant to the terms of the 1979 child support judgment.

On November 15, 2007, the trial court held a hearing on Wife's claim against the Estate. The trial court admitted into evidence the file pertaining to Wife and Husband's 1979 dissolution. The file reflects

264 S.W.3d 666

that there were only two docket entries after Husband's last child support payment was due on May 10, 1991: (1) a May 24, 1991 "Lien Request" accompanied by an "Arrearage Affidavit;" and (2) a June 17, 1991 "Administrative Order" relating to Husband's arrearages. Wife introduced certified records from the Missouri Department of Social Services Family Support Division ("Division") into evidence, which reflected that Husband failed to pay Wife $16,531.60 in child support pursuant to the terms of the 1979 child support judgment. The certified records do not reflect that Husband made any child support payments to Wife. Peggy Riggs of the Division's Child Support Enforcement office testified that the Division's old computer records indicate that Husband only made two child support payments: (1) a child support payment in 1985; and (2) a final payment on June 19, 1991. After the hearing, the trial court entered a probate order allowing Wife's $16,531.60 claim against the Estate and classifying it as a "Class No. 9" claim. Aubuchon appeals.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Our review of a trial court's decision to allow a claim against an estate is governed by Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). In re Estate of Newman, 58 S.W.3d 640, 642-45 (Mo.App. W.D.2001). We will affirm the court's judgment unless it is not supported by substantial evidence, it is against the weight of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, or it erroneously applies the law. Murphy, 536 S.W.2d at 32. Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo. Waddington v. Cox, 247 S.W.3d 567, 570 (Mo.App. E.D.2008).

B. The Trial Court Erroneously Applied the Law When it Allowed Wife's 2007 Claim Against the Estate and Classified it as a "Class No. 9" Claim

In her sole point on appeal, Aubuchon argues that the trial court erroneously applied the law when it allowed Wife's 2007 claim against the Estate because the claim was barred under section 516.350 RSMo 2000.1 We agree.

1. A Court Must Determine Whether There is a Limitation Barring a Claim Against an Estate Before it Classifies the Claim

Wife maintains that the trial court did not err in allowing her claim against Estate because the court classified it as a "Class No. 9" claim. Section 473.397 provides in relevant part that: "All claims and statutory allowances against the estate of a decedent shall be divided into the following classes: ... (8) Judgments rendered against the decedent in his lifetime ...; (9) All other claims not barred by section 473.360." Wife contends that her "Class No. 9" claim against...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Keen v. Wolfe (In re Estate of Keen)
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 11, 2016
    ...The same is true for “review of a trial court's decision to allow a claim against an estate[.]” In re Estate of Miller, 264 S.W.3d 664, 666 (Mo.App.E.D.2008). We presume that the trial court's judgment is correct, and the appellant bears the burden of proving it erroneous. Humphreys v. Wool......
  • Alamin v. Alamin
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 25, 2022
    ... ... out or cancels the debt itself' and 'extinguishes the ... right of action.'" In re Estate of Miller , ... 264 S.W.3d 664, 667 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (quoting ... Hanff , 987 S.W.2d at 356) ...          Subsection ... ...

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