473.140. Removal of personal representative. — If any personal representative becomes mentally incapacitated or is convicted of a felony or other infamous crime, or becomes an habitual drunkard, or in any manner incapable or unsuitable to execute the trust reposed in him, or fails to discharge his official duties, or wastes or mismanages the estate, or acts so as to endanger any corepresentative, or fails to answer any citation and attachment to make settlement, the court, upon its own motion, or upon complaint in writing made by any person interested supported by affidavit, after notice to the personal representative, and to the attorney of record, if any, of any personal representative who cannot be served with notice in this state, shall hear the matter and may revoke the letters granted.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
39
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case:
In Re Est. of Schooler, 204 S.W.3d 338 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
In Re Est. of Schooler, 204 S.W.3d 338 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 15× “" Section 473.140, RSMo. In rendering judgment, the probate court had before it evidence sufficient to support Torrey's removal on either of these grounds.”
Cordes v. Williams, 201 S.W.3d 122 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 10× “On June 13, 2002, pursuant to section 473.140, Jeanette filed a Petition for Removal of Personal Representative, naming Jack as Respondent, and later filed a First Amended Petition.”
Cook v. Barnard, 100 S.W.3d 924 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 18× “Barnard appeals his removal by the Probate Court of Callaway County, under Section 473.140, RSMo 2000, (all further statutory references are to RSMo 2000), as personal representative of his deceased brother’s estate.”
In re the Est. of Vester, 4 S.W.3d 575 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 12× “be removed on the same grounds as is provided in section 473.140, RSMo, for the removal of personal representatives.”
Lehr v. Collier, 909 S.W.2d 717 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “In their fifth point, Petitioners contend that the trial court erred when it dismissed petition “A” in which they sought an order removing Respondents as co-personal representatives of Julia’s probate estate.”
First Christian Church of Dexter v. Leazenby, 551 S.W.2d 944 (Mo. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 5× “Unfortunately Adeline still serves in the latter capacity, there having been no direct attack upon her tenure by the filing of the removal proceeding contemplated by § 473.140. In Davis v. Roberts, 206 Mo.App.”
In re Est. of Foster, 878 S.W.2d 896 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 6× “Third, appellant claims the trial court erred in removing him as personal representative because there was insufficient evidence to warrant removal under § 473.140 RSMo 1986. We disagree with respondent on each point.”
Kellog v. Kellog, 989 S.W.2d 681 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 3× “060; was a ground for removal of a personal representative, Section 473.140; and required that a guardian ad litem be appointed for a person interested in the probate of a will, Section 473.”
Scott v. Lee, 758 S.W.2d 461 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 7× “A guardian or conservator may also be removed on the same grounds as is pro- vided in section 473.140, RSMo, for the removal of personal representatives.”
Shuey v. Willard, 606 S.W.2d 792 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 4× “On March 20, 1978, respondent filed a petition to remove appellant as executor of the estate pursuant to § 473.140, RSMo 1969. In that petition respondent alleged that appellant is a nonresident of Missouri and also was “unsuitable to serve as Executor .”
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.