Seiser, Matter of, 38216
| Decision Date | 11 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 38216,38216 |
| Citation | 557 S.W.2d 263 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Carl F. SEISER, a/k/a Carl Seiser, Deceased. ESTATE of Carl F. SEISER, Robert C. Seiser and Elsie Roddeck, Administrators, Appellants, v. Berenice Ruth MEIER, Respondent. . Louis District, Division Four |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Wion, Burke & Boll, Robert S. Moss and J. Lloyd Wion, Clayton, for appellants.
Fred Roth and Denis L. Taylor, Clayton, for respondent.
This is an appeal by the administrators of the estate of Carl F. Seiser, deceased, from an order of the circuit court of St. Louis County dated May 27, 1976 granting to the respondent-claimant, Berenice Ruth Meier, a trial de novo upon her claim against the estate of Mr. Seiser after the probate court had earlier by order denied her motion to set aside an allowance of her claim against the decedent's estate.
The events leading up to this appeal are as follows. After the demise of Carl F. Seiser an estate was opened in the probate court of St. Louis County. On February 13, 1975 Berenice Ruth Meier filed a claim for $95,400.00 for numerous services rendered Mr. Seiser at his request from 1947 to the date of his death. These services consisted of helping decedent with his reading, writing and spelling, washing and pressing clothes, doing research on various securities, bringing dividend checks to his broker, furnishing food and drink, etc. A hearing on the claim was set for April 7, 1975. On that date the parties by and through their attorneys entered into a stipulation whereby the claim of Berenice Meier was allowed in the sum of $5,000.00. The stipulation was signed by the attorney for the claimant 1 and by the attorney for the administrators. On the same date the probate court entered an order, pursuant to the stipulation, allowing the claim of Berenice Ruth Meier in the sum of $5,000.00 and placed it in the fifth class. Costs were assessed against the estate.
On July 21, 1975, some 104 days after the entry of the order allowing the claim, Miss Meier filed her motion to set aside the order of April 7, 1975 allowing her claim for the reason that "after due deliberation, reconsideration and thorough reasoning about the matter, she feels that the agreement that she originally made is inadequate and therefore desires to have her claim heard by (the probate) Court in full." In the motion she requested that her claim be reinstated on the docket for a hearing. The administrators, appellants here, by their motion urged the probate court, for several reasons, to deny her motion to set aside the order of allowance.
On August 8, 1975, the probate court heard the motion to set aside, and, after hearing testimony from the movant and arguments, the probate court found "no good reason" to set aside the order allowing her claim because "the only evidence being that movant, the claimant, felt that the settlement of the claim was for an inadequate amount, there being no evidence of fraud, undue influence, mistake or mental incapacity." The probate court therefore denied the motion to set aside the allowance granted on April 7, 1975.
On August 20, 1975, an appeal by Miss Meier was taken to the circuit court. In the circuit court a series of affidavits were filed by Miss Meier and several other persons between March 23, 1976 and May 1, 1976. In the affidavit of Berenice Ruth Meier she swore that she performed numerous services for the benefit of the decedent and reiterated the statements made in the original claim filed on February 13, 1975 in the probate court. She also stated that she was engaged to the decedent and that he purchased a ring for her. She further stated, "I realized after I agreed to settle my claim for $5,000.00 that it was grossly inadequate and after I deliberated and reconsidered . . . I realized that it was a miscarriage of justice and a gross mistake to settle as cheaply." The affidavits of the several other persons reinforced the statements that Berenice Meier performed services for the decedent over the years and were in most respects identical to the affidavit of claimant.
On May 27, 1976 the circuit court entered the following order:
"Petitioner (sic) request for a Trial de novo, against the Estate in its entirety granted."
Within ten days, and on June 4, 1976, the administrators of the estate appealed the order of the circuit court granting a trial de novo.
On this appeal the thrust of the appellants' several contentions is that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order granting a trial de novo. The respondent contends otherwise and argues that the order of the circuit court granting the trial de novo is not an appealable order because it does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dillaplain v. Lite Industries, Inc.
... ... Additional facts will be given infra as needed ... One preliminary matter must first be ruled upon. Lite has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal because the trial court ... Degeere v. Appelquist, 748 S.W.2d 855, 857 (Mo.App.1988); Matter of Seiser, 557 S.W.2d 263 (Mo.App.1977) ... The plaintiffs here did not seek an ... ...
-
State ex rel. Seiser's Estate v. Lasky, 39768
...entirety granted." Relator (the estate) appealed, and we held the May 27, 1976 order was not appealable. See In the Matter of Seiser, et al. v. Meier, 557 S.W.2d 263 (Mo.App.1977). Relator then filed this original proceeding seeking prohibition to prevent the circuit court from proceeding f......
-
Parker v. Parker, No. 18088
... ... Matter of Seiser, 557 S.W.2d 263, 265 (Mo.App.1977). Absent the trial court's entry of a final judgment, ... ...
-
Matter of Seiser, 41374.
...to as "estate"). Reference is made to two other appeals involving the same party and the subject matter of this appeal: Matter of Seiser, 557 S.W.2d 263 (Mo.App.1977) and State ex rel. Estate of Seiser v. Lasky, 565 S.W.2d 792 (Mo.App.1978). We adopt much of the statement of facts contained......