Lambley v. Diehl
Decision Date | 09 June 2020 |
Docket Number | C/w WD 82652,WD 82645 |
Citation | 603 S.W.3d 346 |
Parties | Mignon L. LAMBLEY, et al., Appellants, v. Kim L. DIEHL, Trustee, et al., Respondents. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Barry L. Pickens, for Appellants.
Daniel P. Wheeler, Liberty, for Respondents.
Division Three: Anthony Rex Gabbert, Presiding Judge, Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge and W. Douglas Thomson, Judge
This action involves a dispute between siblings regarding the administration of their late parents’ trusts, both of which named Respondent Kim Diehl as successor trustee. Appellants Mignon Lambley and Sydney Burch filed a petition in the Circuit Court of Bates County seeking to remove their brother Kim1 as successor trustee and requesting financial restitution for Kim's personal use of the trusts’ assets. Kim filed counter- and cross-claims asserting counts of quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and contribution, as well as seeking a declaration of rights and instructions from the trial court. After a bench trial, the trial court entered its judgment denying Mignon and Sydney's claims and finding in favor of Kim on each of his claims. Mignon and Sydney appeal. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Raymond O. Diehl and Phyllis S. Diehl, the parents of the parties to this action, were farmers, and the bulk of their assets were farmland, livestock, and farming equipment. On February 14, 1995, Phyllis executed the Phyllis S. Diehl Revocable Inter Vivos Trust ("Phyllis Trust") and Raymond executed the Raymond O. Diehl Revocable Living Trust ("Raymond Trust"). Phyllis was the named grantor and trustee of the Phyllis Trust and Raymond was the named grantor and trustee of the Raymond Trust. Both trusts named Kim as the successor trustee. Each trust was revocable until the death of the grantor, at which point the trust became irrevocable.
Phyllis died on January 31, 2005. The Phyllis Trust provided that the following shall occur upon her death:
The assets held by the Phyllis Trust that are relevant to this action include a John Deere 4560 tractor and several tracts of real property. The parties refer to these tracts as "H Highway" (approximately 80 acres), "Wilson Place" (approximately 306 acres), "Ossie" (approximately 137 acres) and "Ralph" (approximately 40 acres).3 Collectively, we refer to this real property as the "Phyllis Trust property."
As originally executed, the Raymond Trust—like the Phyllis Trust—provided that upon the death of both spouses, "[t]he remaining principal and interest of the Trust Estate will be paid over and distributed free of trust, in equal shares to Grantor's children, Kim L. Diehl, Sydney Burch, and Mignon Diehl." However, on May 12, 2010, Raymond amended the trust provisions relating to the distribution of the Raymond Trust's assets upon his death. The amended provisions provided that:
Raymond died on February 20, 2013.
After Phyllis died, the income earned by the Phyllis Trust consisted of crops and government farm payments. Raymond obtained bank loans and used those funds, in part, to pay for inputs to farm on the Phyllis Trust property.4 The loans were secured by Raymond's cattle.
Corn and soybeans were grown on the Phyllis Trust property. When corn was harvested from Wilson Place, Ralph, and Ossie, it was distributed to Raymond, and he generally used it to feed his cattle.5 When soybeans were harvested from that property, Raymond generally sold the crops and added the proceeds to his personal checking account. The Farm Service Agency payments for Wilson Place, Ralph, and Ossie were directly distributed to Raymond. The Phyllis Trust did not maintain a bank account.
During this time period, Kim, his sons, and employees hired by Kim provided custom farm work for the Phyllis Trust to generate the corn and soybeans. These farm services included: anhydrous application, fertilizer application, disking, rolling and finishing, planting, spraying, combining and hauling, spraying brush, mowing roadsides, baling hay, scraping, mowing pasture, and chopping silage. To perform these services, Kim used his own diesel fuel and equipment. Kim's equipment included a tractor and auger cart, a sprayer worth approximately $175,000-$200,000, a four-wheel drive tractor worth approximately $150,000-$300,000 with an anhydrous fertilizer applicator attachment worth approximately $57,000, a combine worth approximately $500,000, a chore tractor, a wheat combine worth approximately $200,000-$300,000, a drill worth approximately $55,000, a grain wagon to transfer feed, and a trailer truck. Although Raymond owned some dated farm equipment, it was inadequate to farm the Phyllis Trust property.
After Raymond died, Kim continued to farm the Phyllis Trust property. At the time of his death, Raymond owed to Community First Bank $389,645.64 in loans, the proceeds of which had been partially used to pay for the inputs for Wilson Place, Ralph, and Ossie. On March 31, 2015, Kim personally assumed the loans. Kim also personally paid vendors who were owed for items purchased or services rendered to the Phyllis Trust, the Raymond Trust, and Raymond's estate.
Following Raymond's death, Mignon, Sydney, and Kim engaged in protracted, yet unsuccessful, settlement negotiations regarding the disposition of the trusts’ assets.
In May 2015, Mignon and Sydney initiated this action by filing a Petition for Accounting, for Removal of Trustee and for Financial Restitution. Two months later they filed an amended petition, naming as defendants Kim in his individual capacity, Kim as trustee of the Phyllis Trust, Kim as trustee of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Primerica Life Ins. Co.
...interest may be awarded as "compensation for the use or loss of the use of money to the person entitled to it." Lambley v. Diehl , 603 S.W.3d 346, 364 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020). In interpleader actions, "prejudgment interest need not be automatically allowed," Ins. Co. of N.A. v. Skyway Aviation,......
-
Estate of Smith v. Primerica Life Ins. Co.
... ... interest may be awarded as "compensation for the use or ... loss of the use of money to the person entitled to it." ... Lambley v. Diehl , 603 S.W.3d 346, 364 (Mo.Ct.App ... 2020). In interpleader actions, "prejudgment interest ... need not be automatically ... ...
- Weisz v. Great Am. Title Q 1-103-1, LLC