Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 461
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 461.054 (2026)

Disqualification for fraud, duress and undue influence and causing owner's death

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  461.054.  Disqualification for fraud, duress and undue influence and causing owner's death — proceeding to determine disqualification. — 1.  A  beneficiary designation or a revocation of a beneficiary designation that is procured by fraud, duress or undue influence is void.

  2.  A beneficiary who willfully and unlawfully causes or participates with another in causing the death of the owner, or the insured individual under a life insurance policy or certificate, is disqualified from receiving any benefit of a nonprobate transfer from the owner or any proceeds payable as a result of the death of an individual insured under a life insurance policy or certificate.  The beneficiary designation shall be given effect as if the disqualified beneficiary had disclaimed it.  The fact that a beneficiary willfully and unlawfully caused or participated with another in causing the death of the owner may be established by a criminal conviction or guilty plea, after the right of direct appeal has been exhausted, or determined in a proceeding pursuant to subsection 3 of this section using a preponderance of the evidence standard.

  3.  On petition of any interested person or the transferring entity, the trier of fact shall determine whether a beneficiary designation or a revocation of a beneficiary designation is void by reason of subsection 1 of this section or whether subsection 2 of this section applies to prevent any person from receiving any benefit of the nonprobate transfer.  The trier of fact may mitigate the effect of subsection 1 or 2 on any person as the trier of fact determines justice requires.  Any party may demand a jury trial.

­­--------

(L. 1989 H.B. 145 § 35, A.L. 1995 S.B. 116)

(1998) Statute does not provide for reformation of beneficiary deed due to unilateral mistake.  Groh v. Ballard, 965 S.W.2d 872 (Mo.App. W.D.)

(2014) Changes to beneficiary designations are matters of contract and thus each transaction is governed by the standard for contractual capacity, not the standard for testamentary capacity.  Ivie v. Smith, 439 S.W.3d  189 (Mo.banc).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2008–2023 · leading case: Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Houston v. Crider, 317 S.W.3d 178 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “054- 4 Defendants assert in their first point that the trial court misapplied the law by relying upon section 461.054, 5 related to procuring a beneficiary designation by undue influence, to reach its legal conclusion that Sherry exerted undue influence upon Irene to procure the…”
Williams v. Hubbard, 455 S.W.3d 426 (Mo. 2015). · cites it 17× “, Missouri PRACTICE: PROBATE AND SURROGATE LAW MANUAL (2001) (“Manual”), at 597.”
Richard E. Ivie v. Arnold L. Smith, 439 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. 2014). · cites it 3× “The legislature’s listing of several ways in § 461.054, RSMo 2000, to declare a beneficiary designation void does not mean it intended to impliedly abrogate the common law requirement of contractual capacity for beneficiary designations.”
Crocker v. Crocker, 261 S.W.3d 724 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 9× “James and Brian Crocker rely on the Committee Comment to Section 461.054 in arguing that even if the 2001 Beneficiary Deed were void, the property contained therein would revert to Mother’s probate estate, not to the 1998 Beneficiary Deed.”
Eric Williams v. William L. Hubbard, No. SC93853 (Mo. Feb. 3, 2015). · cites it 17× “The 1995 Committee Comment to Section 461.054 states that property that is subject to a void beneficiary designation as a result of fraud, duress, or undue influence “will become part of the probate estate.”
In the Matter of Gerald E. Whisenand, Rachelle D. Franzeskos, Russell D. Whisenand v. Reggie Fatino & Tracy Whisenand, 642 S.W.3d 768 (Mo. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “1 thereby rendering the deed void under section 461.054. 2 The circuit court’s judgment concluded that Petitioners failed to prove the grantor’s signature on the beneficiary deed was forged.”
Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Est. of Ronnell Dwight Burns, No. 4:22-cv-00260 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 13, 2022). · cites it 2× “See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 461.054 (2); O.C.G.A. § 33-25-13.”
Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Bowman, No. 5:22-cv-06084 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 23, 2023). “June 13, 2018) (finding the district court lacked jurisdiction under § 1335 because there were “no actual claimants” to the insurance proceeds and the beneficiary did not have a colorable interest in the proceeds as a matter of law under § 461.054 to the extent she had plead…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.