State ex rel. Wratchford v. Fincham

Decision Date05 July 2017
Docket NumberWD 80498
Citation521 S.W.3d 710
Parties STATE of Missouri EX REL. Donald Orel WRATCHFORD, Dana D. Ruhl, and David L. Wratchford, Relators, v. The Honorable Thomas C. FINCHAM, Respondent.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

David Preston Crandall, Overland Park, Kansas, for relators.

Diane Kay Hook, St. Joseph, Missouri, for respondent.

Before Writ Division: Alok Ahuja, P.J., and Victor C. Howard and Karen King Mitchell, JJ.

Alok Ahuja, Judge

Relators Donald Orel Wratchford, Dana D. Ruhl, and David L. Wratchford filed a petition for a writ of prohibition to prevent Respondent Judge Thomas C. Fincham from proceeding further in a civil suit currently pending against them in the Circuit Court of Platte County. In the underlying action the plaintiff alleges that the Relators are in possession of assets of their deceased parents, which should be made available to discharge the parents' debts for nursing home care. Relators argue that the claims asserted against them are for discovery of assets, which must be pursued in the probate division of the circuit court, and that Respondent was therefore required to dismiss the underlying civil action. We issued a preliminary writ, which we now make permanent.

Factual Background

The Relators are the children of husband and wife Donald Lee Wratchford and Mona S. "Bobbie" Wratchford, both of whom are now deceased ("Parents"). The underlying action was filed in the circuit court by PGVN, LLC, doing business as Garden Valley Nursing and Rehabilitation Center. Garden Valley operates a nursing home in Kansas City.

In its Second Amended Petition, Garden Valley alleges that Donald Lee Wratchford died on September 18, 2015, and that Mona Wratchford died on December 4, 2016. The petition alleges that, before they passed away, Parents resided in Garden Valley's nursing home, and incurred charges for medical and residential care which have not been paid. Garden Valley alleges that, as of the date of Mona Wratchford's death, Parents had incurred total unpaid charges of $76,032.12.

The Second Amended Petition alleges that Relator Donald Orel Wratchford ("Orel") acted as the attorney-in-fact for both Parents since their execution of powers of attorney in 2013. The petition alleges that, in his role as attorney-in-fact, Orel failed to use Parents' assets to pay their expenses, but instead took possession of those assets, and used certain of those assets to pay his personal expenses. The petition alleges that Orel "has funds belonging to or that should belong to [Parents] or their Estates in his possession or under his control and has failed and continues to fail to use those funds to pay for the necessary medical services rendered to them." The petition also alleges that any property of Parents which Orel used for his personal expenses during their lifetimes "should also be an asset of their Estates and available to pay the claims of the creditors of the same."

The Second Amended Petition further alleges that all three of the Relators are Parents' heirs at law, and are the beneficiaries of "transfer on death" designations attached to Parents' assets. The petition alleges that Relators "claim or have claimed an interest in the cash assets, bank accounts, investment accounts and other accounts which should be an asset of the Estates of [Parents] available to pay the claims of the creditors of the same."

Garden Valley's Second Amended Petition prays

that the Court discover or allow [Garden Valley] to discover the assets of [Parents] and [Orel] to the extent that he used their assets, determine the ultimate title and right of possession thereto, determine the persons who have an interest in the personal property, and the nature and extent of such interest in the property of the Decedent, to direct the delivery of title and possession of the property to the persons determined to have the right thereto, render judgment in favor of the [Garden Valley] for all losses, expenses and damages, late fees, attorney's fees and costs, for pre and post judgment interest at the highest rate allowed by law, and for such other and further Orders as are just and proper.

Relators moved to dismiss the claims asserted against them. They argued that, pursuant to § 473.340, RSMo, Garden Valley's claims could be brought solely in a discovery of assets proceeding in the probate division of the circuit court. Relators also argued that Garden Valley lacked standing to assert claims on behalf of Parents or their estates, because Garden Valley was not the personal representative of the estate of either parent. After the circuit court denied the Relators' motion to dismiss, they filed their writ petition in this Court.

Analysis

Relators argue that they are entitled to a writ of prohibition ordering Respondent to take no further action in the underlying case, because Garden Valley's claims must be brought in a discovery of assets proceeding in the probate division, and because Garden Valley lacks standing to pursue claims on behalf of Parents or their estates. Because we conclude that Garden Valley's claims must be pursued in a discovery of assets proceeding in the probate division, we make our preliminary writ permanent without addressing the standing issue.

Prohibition is an original remedial writ brought to confine a lower court to the proper exercise of its jurisdiction. This Court has the authority to "issue and determine original remedial writs." Mo. Const. art. V, sec. 4.1. A writ of prohibition is appropriate to preserve the orderly and economical administration of justice, or where there is an important question of law decided erroneously that would otherwise escape review by this Court, and the aggrieved party may suffer considerable hardship and expense as a consequence of the erroneous decision.

State ex rel. White Family P'ship v. Roldan , 271 S.W.3d 569, 572 (Mo. banc 2008) (citations, internal quotations marks, and footnotes omitted). "Prohibition is a discretionary writ that only issues to prevent an abuse of judicial discretion, to avoid irreparable harm to a party, or to prevent exercise of extrajurisdictional power." State ex rel. Schwarz P h arma, Inc. v. Dowd , 432 S.W.3d 764, 768 (Mo. banc 2014) (citation omitted).

All of Garden Valley's claims against Relators allege that the Relators are in possession of, or claim an interest in, property which Garden Valley contends should be part of Parents' estates, and should be available to discharge the Parents' debts to Garden Valley. Garden Valley alleges no direct claims against Relators on its own behalf, but instead seeks to benefit indirectly by augmenting the assets in Parents' estates which would be available to satisfy Garden Valley's claims. Garden Valley's claims against Relators seek "discovery of assets." "As its name implies, a discovery of assets action is a search for assets belonging to the decedent at her death." Est. of Ridgeway , 369 S.W.3d 103, 106 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (citation omitted). "A discovery of assets proceeding is an action to determine a decedent estate's title, right to possession, or both of specific property." Est. of Williams v. Williams , 12 S.W.3d 302, 305 (Mo. banc 2000).

Section 473.340.1, RSMo, provides:

Any personal representative, administrator, creditor, beneficiary or other person who claims an interest in property which is claimed to be an asset of an estate or which is claimed should be an asset of an estate may file a verified petition in the probate division of the circuit court in which said estate is pending seeking determination of the title, or right of possession thereto, or both. The petition shall describe the property, if known, shall allege the nature of the interest of the petitioner and that title or possession of the property, or both, are being adversely withheld or claimed. The court may order the joinder, as a party, of any person who may claim an interest in or who may have possession of any such property.

See generally Est. of Ellis , 187 S.W.3d 344, 350-53 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (describing procedure in discovery of assets proceedings).

The Missouri Supreme Court has unambiguously declared that "[t]he probate division of the circuit court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over a proceeding to discover assets pursuant to sec. 473.340." Williams , 12 S.W.3d at 305 ; see also Ryan v. Spiegelhalter , 64 S.W.3d 302, 305 (Mo. banc 2002) ; Est. of Boatright , 88 S.W.3d 500, 505 (Mo. App. S.D. 2002).1 Williams explained that "[t]he self-evident purpose of sec. 473.340 is to channel all claims to specific property in which an estate may have an interest into the probate division of the circuit court...." Id. at 306-07. In light of the clear directive of the Supreme Court in Williams and Spiegelhalter , the circuit division had no authority to determine Garden Valley's claims.

In opposing Relators' writ petition, Garden Valley acknowledges that, "after the death of Mona Wratchford, the claims for non-payment of the Plaintiff's services, were more properly a Discovery of Assets proceeding." Although acknowledging that its claims were for discovery of assets, Garden Valley argues that its claims did not fall within the probate division's exclusive jurisdiction, because "[t]hat specific holding in Williams v. Williams , received negative treatment" in Ryan ex rel. Estate of Reece v. Reece , 31 S.W.3d 82 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000).

There are at least two problems with Garden Valley's argument. First, of course, this Court has no authority to overrule decisions of Missouri's Supreme Court. See , e.g. , McMillan v. Pilot Travel Ctrs., LLC , 515 S.W.3d 699, 706 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) ; Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of St. Louis , 311 S.W.3d 818, 822-23 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). To the contrary, the Missouri Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court's "decisions shall be controlling in all other courts." Art. V, § 2. Whether or not Reece gave "negative treatment" to the Supreme Court's Williams decision is irrelevant.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Waggoner v. State
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 20 Marzo 2018
    ...We do not presume the Supreme Court has overruled its previous decision unless it proclaims otherwise." State ex rel. Wratchford v. Fincham , 521 S.W.3d 710, 715 (Mo. App. W.D. 2017) (quoting McMillan v. Pilot Travel Ctrs., LLC , 515 S.W.3d 699, 706 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) ).7 I presume that a......
  • Chariton Grove Cemetery Ass'n v. Love
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 1 Febrero 2022
    ... ... 772 (Mo. 2021) (quoting Mo. State Conf. of NAACP v ... State, 601 S.W.3d 241, 246 (Mo. 2020) (other ... State ex rel. Cooper v. Cloyd, 461 S.W.2d 833, 835 ... (Mo. 1971); see also ... rel. Wratchford v. Fincham, 521 S.W.3d 710, 713-16 (Mo ... App. W.D. 2017) ... ...
  • Chariton Grove Cemetery Ass'n v. Love
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 1 Febrero 2022
  • Chariton Grove Cemetery Ass'n v. Love
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 1 Febrero 2022
    ... ... 772 (Mo. 2021) (quoting Mo. State Conf. of NAACP v ... State, 601 S.W.3d 241, 246 (Mo. 2020) (other ... State ex rel. Cooper v. Cloyd, 461 S.W.2d 833, 835 ... (Mo. 1971); see also ... rel. Wratchford v. Fincham, 521 S.W.3d 710, 713-16 (Mo ... App. W.D. 2017) ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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