Shea v. Gaither

• Decision Date: 02 January 2013
• Docket Number: No. ED 97977.,ED 97977.
• Citation: 389 S.W.3d 725
• Parties: Donald W. SHEA and David M. Shea, Respondents, v. Mary A. GAITHER and Donald U. Gaither, Individually and as Trustees of the Doris V. Staats Lifetime Trust, et al., Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

389 S.W.3d 725

Donald W. SHEA and David M. Shea, Respondents,

v.Mary A. GAITHER and Donald U. Gaither, Individually and as Trustees of the Doris V. Staats Lifetime Trust, et al., Appellants.

No. ED 97977.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Four.

Jan. 2, 2013.

Mark M. Wenner, Clayton, John K. Howald, Cuba, MO, for appellants.

R. Brooks Kenagy III, J.D. Rohrer, Steelville, MO, for respondents.

LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, Presiding Judge.

The defendant trustees of the Doris V. Staats Lifetime Trust, Donald and Mary Gaither, appeal individually and in their capacity as trustees from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Warren County entered after hearing on the residuary beneficiaries' objections to the trustees' final accounting and proposed distribution. The plaintiffs, Donald Shea and David Shea, nephews of the settlor and the residuary beneficiaries of the trust, filed suit in multiple counts against the trust, the trustees individually, and several others. The trial court issued its judgment on the final accounting, but left pending the beneficiaries' claims concerning the validity of an amendment to the trust that made a gift of two farms from the trust to the trustees and the later conveyance of one of the farms.

The trial court failed to dispose of “one claim” when it did not resolve the beneficiaries' action concerning the amendment to the trust and disposition of the farms. Therefore, we dismiss the trustees' appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Facts

Doris Staats established the Doris V. Staats Lifetime Trust in 2004, and named her nephews, Donald Shea and David Shea as the residuary beneficiaries. Mary Gaither, the niece of Doris Staats's late husband, and Mary Gaither's husband, Donald, became the trustees of the Doris V. Staats Lifetime Trust in May 2007. The value of the trust was then about $5,000,000. In June 2007, Doris Staats purportedly executed several amendments to the trust, which the beneficiaries claim were not properly executed according to the trust's express terms. The Amendment to Article One—Exhibit A gave the property known as the Gaither Farm to the trustees and gave to Mary Gaither and several other persons the property known as the Beatty Farm. According to the beneficiaries, the trust also made a number of gifts and payments to other persons, including the trustees and their family members, made early distributions to charities and other entities named in the trust, made an interest-free loan to the trustees, and purchased a $100,000 certificate of deposit in the name of the trustees individually. Donald Gaither, as trustee, conveyed by general warranty deed the Beatty Farm to Mary Gaither and nine other persons in November 2007. Doris Staats died a month later.

The beneficiaries sued the trustees, both individually and in their capacity as trustees, along with numerous other individuals, entities, and charities. The beneficiaries sought removal of the trustees, an accounting, damages for breach of loyalty, money had and received from several individuals, and a declaratory judgment that various amendments to the trust were void and invalid. They also sought to set aside the deed conveying the Beatty Farm.

The trial court entered a consent judgment on July 30, 2010 that, inter alia, dismissed several of the claims and parties, ordered a final accounting, and authorized the beneficiaries to file a third-amended petition. The beneficiaries filed their third-amended petition seeking a declaratory judgment voiding the Amendment to Article One—Exhibit A based on undue influence and failure to comply with the trust's express requirements for amendments, and seeking to set aside the deed conveying the Beatty Farm. In accordance with the consent judgment, the trustees filed their final accounting. The residuary beneficiaries filed objections. After hearing evidence over the course of two days, the trial court issued its judgment on the final accounting. At the request of the trust's attorney—made so that the trustees could withdraw and relinquish their duties to the Warren County Public Administrator—the court ruled that “this Judgment is final for the purpose of appeal pursuant to Section 512.020 RSMo.”

The trustees appeal. The beneficiaries' action involving the validity of the Amendment to Article One—Exhibit A, which provides for the gifts of the Gaither and Beatty Farms, remains pending. The trustees have also pointed to other issues with the judgment that affect its finality.

Discussion

In eight points on appeal and several subpoints, the trustees assert numerous claims of error involving the trial court's findings of fact, admission of evidence, failure to award trustees' fees, rejection of certain fees billed by the trustees' certified public accountant, rejection of certain attorney's fees, denial of certain trustees' fees, and the amount ordered to remain in the trust for taxes.

In every appeal, this Court must determine whether we have jurisdiction. Comm. for Educ. Equal. v. State, 878 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. banc 1994); Columbia Mut. Ins. Co. v. Epstein, 200 S.W.3d 547, 549 (Mo.App. E.D.2006). Appellate review requires a final judgment, and where the judgment appealed lacks finality, we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal. Section 512.020 RSMo. (Supp.2011); ¹Columbia, 200 S.W.3d at 549. A final, appealable judgment disposes of all issues and all parties in the litigation, leaving nothing for future determination. Id. However, a trial court may enter judgment on a single claim in a case involving multiple claims and certify its judgment as final and appealable upon an express determination that no just reason for delay exists. Rule 74.01(b); Comm. for Educ. Equal., 878 S.W.2d at 450;Columbia, 200 S.W.3d at 549.Rule 74.01(b) provides in pertinent part:

When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may enter a judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay.

(Emphasis added).

In this case, the trial court issued its judgment with regard to the final accounting on September 19, 2011. At the request of the trust's attorney—made so that the trustees could withdraw and relinquish their duties to the Warren County Public Administrator—the court ruled that “this Judgment is final for the purpose of appeal pursuant to Section 512.020RSMo.” Section 512.020, however, enumerates appealable judgments and orders. It makes no provision for appeal when the trial court has not disposed of all claims and parties.

The court did not designate its judgment as a final judgment for purposes of appeal pursuant to Rule 74.01(b), nor did it make an express finding of no just reason for delay. “If a trial court does not adjudicate all issues and does not make the determination called for by Rule 74.01(b), the judgment is not final and the appeal must be dismissed.” Ruestman v. Ruestman, 69 S.W.3d 525, 528 (Mo.App. S.D.2002). “[F]or the circuit court to certify for appeal a judgment resolving fewer than all the claims, the judgment must expressly designate that there is ‘no just reason for delay.’ ” In re Estate of Ginn, 323 S.W.3d 860, 864 (Mo.App. W.D.2010). Where the circuit court does not make such an express designation, the judgment is not final, and we must dismiss the appeal. Id.

Even were we to construe the trial court's language as a certification pursuant to Rule 74.01(b), we must determine whether such a designation was proper. Columbia, 200 S.W.3d at 550. For certification pursuant to Rule 74.01(b), the trial court's decision must dispose of at least one claim. Rule 74.01(b); Comm. for Educ. Equal., 878 S.W.2d at 450;Columbia, 200 S.W.3d at 550. The “one...