no-contest clause in Missouri

2022However, the no-contest clause in a trust instrument serves 6 a dual purpose: it permits the grantor to dispose of his own property as he sees fit, and it forces “the grave consequence of a forfeiture upon the beneficiary who attempt[s] to frustrate the intention of the donor as expressed in the disposing instrument.” Knopik v. Shelby Invs., LLC, 597 S.W.3d 189 , 191 (Mo. banc 2020), citing Cox v. Fisher, 322 S.W.2d 910, 913 (Mo. banc 1959).

2020A no-contest clause in a trust serves a dual purpose: it permits the settlor to dispose of his own property as he sees fit, and it forces “the grave consequence of a forfeiture upon the beneficiary who attempt[s] to frustrate the intention of the donor as expressed in the disposing instrument.” Cox v. Fisher, 322 S.W.2d 910, 913 (Mo. 1959).

2015Section 7(i) of the trust provided: ' If any beneficiary under this Trust, in any manner, directly or indirectly, contests or attack this Trust or any of its provisions, the share or interest of that beneficiary in this Trust shall be revoked and'of no force or effect, and such beneficiary’s- share or interest shall be distributed in the manner provided herein as if the contesting beneficiary had predeceased'both Settlors without issue. ’ “In reviewing the applicability of forfeiture’provisions or ‘no-contest’ clauses, courts are to consider the facts of the particular case, and those facts ar

2014Cox v. Fisher, 322 S.W.2d 910, 915 (Mo. banc 1959); see also Chaney v. Cooper, 954 S.W.2d 510, 519 (Mo.App.W.D.1997) (in reviewing applicability of forfeiture provisions in wills, courts are to consider facts of the particular case, and those facts are to be considered and applied with careful *274 regard for phrasing or language of the forfeiture clause, and, having in mind that forfeitures are not favored by the law); see also Tobias v. Korman, 141 S.W.3d 468, 477 (Mo.App.E.D.2004) (generally unfavored by the law, a no-contest clause is to be enforced where it is clear that the trustor (or t

2022See Bohlmann, 439 S.W.3d at 273 (beneficiary’s efforts to require trustee to file accounting pursuant to terms of the trust did not violate no-contest clause where the no-contest clause terms prohibited an attempt to vacate, change or alter the trust itself, not a challenge to the trustee’s actions).

2022Bohlmann, 439 S.W.3d at 273 .

2019Accordingly, in the more recent case of Tobias v. Korman, 141 S.W.3d 468, 477 (Mo. App. 2004), the Eastern District of this court held that beneficiaries who asserted trust administration claims against the trustee forfeited their interest in the trust under a no-contest clause that provided that, “[i]f any beneficiary, excluding trustee, makes any allegation or causes litigation either prior to or after his death they will automatically forfeit their designated amount.” (Emphasis added.) Applying the principles from Cox, Commerce Trust, and Rossi to the trust in this case, the plain language

2014Cox v. Fisher, 322 S.W.2d 910, 915 (Mo. banc 1959); see also Chaney v. Cooper, 954 S.W.2d 510, 519 (Mo.App.W.D.1997) (in reviewing applicability of forfeiture provisions in wills, courts are to consider facts of the particular case, and those facts are to be considered and applied with careful *274 regard for phrasing or language of the forfeiture clause, and, having in mind that forfeitures are not favored by the law); see also Tobias v. Korman, 141 S.W.3d 468, 477 (Mo.App.E.D.2004) (generally unfavored by the law, a no-contest clause is to be enforced where it is clear that the trustor (or t

2024See Storey, 175 S.W.3d at 126 . 15 The argument following the Appellants' third point relied on clarifies that the Appellants believe they were not required to file their own Safe Harbor Petition because Long's Safe Harbor Petition sought a determination about whether Counterpetition Count II violated the no-contest clause, rendering Appellants' Safe Harbor Petition superfluous.

2024STRCUE, Inc. v. Potts, 386 S.W.3d 214, 219 (Mo. App. W.D. 2012) (holding that an appellant's failure to challenge a finding or ruling that would independently support the conclusion reached by the trial court is fatal to the appeal).

2023Jeff also cites Ackerman v. Genevieve Ackerman Family Trust, 908 A.2d 1200, 1204 (D.C. 2006), where the court affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that a party’s unsuccessful action to reform a trust triggered the trust’s no-contest clause.

2022Top Craft, Inc. v. Int'l Collection Servs., 258 S.W.3d 488, 490-91 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008).

2018See, e.g. , id. at 199 n.12 (noting that because settlor lacked capacity to amend trust, the amendments and no-contest clauses therein had no effect).

2016See Cook v. Barnard, 100 S.W.3d 924, 928 (Mo.App.W.D.2003) (bank accounts/certificates of deposit that were jointly owned or payable on death passed to the joint owner/beneficiary “by operation of law”).

2016However, the assertions in points V and VI that Amber’s expense reimbursement claim and her “claim” for the .POD balance violated the Trust’s no-contest clause were not adjudicated in the second trust case. 14 But Point Vi’s claim that Amber violated the Trust’s no-contest clause in “seeking distribution” of the POD balance is not preserved for review because, as Respondents suggest, it was not raised in the final settlement objections. 15 *85 “Absent some constitutional imperative not present here ... it simply is not the role of the court of appeals or [the Supreme] Court [of Missouri] to gr