472.150. Vacation and modification of judgments. — For good cause, before the expiration of the period allowed for appeal after the order of final distribution of the administration of the estate of a decedent or ward, the court may vacate or modify its orders, judgments and decrees, or grant a rehearing therein, except that no such power shall exist as to any orders, judgments or decrees from which an appeal has been taken, prior to a final disposition thereof on such appeal, or to set aside the probate of a will after the time allowed for contest thereof. No vacation or modification under this section affects any act done or any right acquired in reliance on any such order, judgment or decree.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1957–2024 · leading case:
In Re Est. of Standley, 204 S.W.3d 745 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
In Re Est. of Standley, 204 S.W.3d 745 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 10× “1996); see § 472.150. [5] However, if an order falls within the enumerated exceptions set forth in section 472.”
In Re the Est. of Burg, 68 S.W.3d 543 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 5× “*545 Section 472.150 RSMo.2000; 1 Estate of Couch, 920 S.”
State Ex Rel. Est. of Seiser v. Lasky, 565 S.W.2d 792 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 6× “Section 472.150 authorizes vacation and modification of orders, judgments and decrees for good cause before the expiration of the period allowed for appeal after the order of final distribution.”
Est. of Johnson v. Kranitz, 168 S.W.3d 84 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “1996); § 472.150. 10 However, if an order falls within the enumerated circumstances set forth in section 472.”
Est. of Couch, 920 S.W.2d 165 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 5× “Section 472.150 RSMo 1995. The administration is considered one action and the whole matter is within the purview of the probate court until final determination.”
In Re Dugan, 309 S.W.2d 137 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957).
· cites it 4× “There the respondent filed motion to dismiss the appeal, and such motion to dismiss was finally sustained upon the stated ground that the Missouri Pacific is not an interested party and has no standing in court. The Missouri Pacific has appealed.”
Est. of Clark v. Finney, 610 S.W.2d 367 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 8× “Respondent’s motion for rehearing contends that § 472.150, RSMo 1978 1 invests the probate division with jurisdiction, at any time during administration on the estate of an incompetent, to vacate the order of adjudication, the provisions of Rule 75.”
In Re Est. of Bacheller, 437 S.W.2d 132 (Mo. Ct. App. 1968).
· cites it 4× “This contention is based upon the provisions of Section 472.150 (unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to RSMo 1959, V.”
Ellinwood v. Est. of Lyons, 731 S.W.2d 23 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 3× “Section 472.150 RSMo 1986, allows the judge to vacate, modify or rehear any judgment, order, or decree up to thirty days after the final order of distribution.”
Clapper v. Chandler, 406 S.W.2d 114 (Mo. Ct. App. 1966).
· cites it 4× “2d 70 , 77-78 [9]; 1 Woerner, American Law of Administration, Section 146, p.”
In Re Est. of Forhan, 149 S.W.3d 537 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
“See § 472.150. 6 Therefore, Sears still retains two remedies to seek relief from the order denying its claim.”
Werner v. Wright, 737 S.W.2d 761 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “1 Respondent counters with the argument that because the order for the conser-vatorship was made within thirty days of the original order appointing the guardian, the former was merely a modification which the court had jurisdiction to enter under § 472.150. The statutory…”
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.