1 

## Missouri Court of Appeals **Southern District Division One** 
In re ROMONA WOOLDRIDGE ) DURABLE POWER OF ATT ORNEY , ) ROBERTA HULL, ) ) Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD36218 ) MATTHEW HULL, Trustee, ) FILED: July 8, 2020 ) Appellant, ) ) DAVID YANCEY, Personal Representative ) of the Estate of Ro mona Wooldridge, ) ) Responden t. )
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY Honorable Michael J. Cordonnier, Judge APPEAL DISMISSED Determining that the appellant lacks standing to appeal the trial court’s challenged order, the appeal is dismissed.
Factual and Procedural Background Robert and Romona Wooldridge initially executed trust agreements in 2005 for the
benefit of their descendants. T rust revisions followed, culminating in 2017, when both Robert2 and Romona 1 executed trust documents that purported to abandon all previous versions of their
trusts and restate them in their entire t y (“the 2017 Restatements”). The 2017 Restatements provided that, upon the death of Robert and Romona, the remaining trust principal would be distributed to their descendants, defined as ch ildren and grandchildren. As of the execution of the 2017 Restatements, Robert and Romona had three
descendants as so defined

— their daughter, Roberta Hull ; their son, Robert Wooldridge, Jr.; and their grandson , Matthew Hull . The 2017 Restatements named M atthew as the successor trustee of the trusts (if Robert or Romona could not serve as trustee ) and directed that the t rustee disburse from the principal of the trusts “such amounts as Trustee deems advisable” to provide for the health, education, and suppo rt of each descendant

. 2 The 2017 Restatements also provided that if any descendant died before the complete distribution of his or her share, the remainder
would be distributed among the descendant’s then

- living descendants. This manner of pri ncipal
distribution was a change from the manner of distribution provided in preceding versions of the

trusts

. Following Robert’s death in 2018, Roberta commenced this action a lleging that because her parents, beginning in 2011, exhibited symptoms of demen tia, they lacked capacity and were subjected to undue influence when they executed various legal documents, including the 2017
Restatements. Her petition sought declaratory judgments that the 2017 Restatements are invalid,
various accountings, the removal of Matthew as trustee of the t rusts , and , as pertinent here, an interlocutory determination under section 456.4

- 420 3 of the Missouri Uniform Trust Code

1 Because various family members share the same last name, we sometimes refer to them in this opinion by their first names. No disrespect is intended. 2 Because Matthew is a party to the underlying trial court case in both his individual capacity and in hi s fiduciary capacity as the trustee of the trusts, for clarity, this opinion refers to him as “Matthew” when referring to him in the former capacity and as “Trustee” when referring to him in the latter capacity. 3 All statutory references are to RSMo 2016 , unless otherwise indicated, and all rule references are to Missouri Court Rules (2019)

.3 (“MUTC”) that identical in terrorem clause s in the 2017 Restatements that purport to disinherit

a ny beneficiary who contests the t rusts’ provisions (“the no

- contest clause”) are not enforceable as to the other claims asserted in her petition

. 4 The named parties in the petition included , among others, Robert Jr. , as a beneficiary of th e t rusts, and Matth ew, both in his individual capacity , as a beneficiary of the t rusts, and in his fiduciary capacity as trustee of the t rusts (“Trustee”)

. 5
Before proceeding on any other claims in the petition , t he trial court first addressed Roberta’s request for an interlocutory determination that the no

- contest clause was not enforceable against the other claims asserted by her in the petition

. 6 After receiving oral argument and written suggestions by the parties , the trial court issued an order by docket entry declaring the no - contest clause as not enforceable against the remaining claims asserted in the petition (“the order”)

. 7
Trustee pursued this interlocutory appeal under section 456.4

- 420.3. 8 On appeal, Trustee raises a single point c ontending that the trial court “erred in finding that the no

- contest clause i s

4 S ection 456.4

- 420.1 provides: If a trust instrument containing a no

- contest clause is or has become irrevocable, an interested person may file a petition to the co urt for an interlocutory determination whether a particular motion, petition, or other claim for relief by the interested person would trigger application of the no - contest clause or would otherwise trigger a forfeiture that is enforceable under applicable law and public policy. Further, section 456.4

- 420.2 provides, in pertinent part, that “ The [section 456.4

- 420.1] petition may be filed by an interested person either as a separate judicial proceeding, or brought with other claims for relief in a single ju dicial proceeding [.]” 5 Ramona, who was also included as a party, died during the pendency of this appeal

. The personal representative of her estate, David Yancey, thereafter was substituted as a party in her plac e and stead. 6 S ection 456.4

- 420.2 provides, in pertinent part, that “If a [section 456.4

- 420.1] petition is joined with other claims for relief, the court shall enter its order or judgment on the petition before proceeding any further with any other cla im for relief joined therein.” 7 The parties’ arguments implicitly assume, without expressly so stating, that the order is a n “order” by the trial court as defined by Rule 74.02. We see no reason why that assumption is incorrect. Conversely, n o party asserts or contends , either directly or indirectly, that the order is a “judgment” as defined by Rule 74.01. 8 Matthew, in his individual capacity on his own personal behalf , filed a separate notice of appeal seeking an interlocutory appeal of the order that was assigned appeal number SD 3622 1 by this Court . T hat appeal was dismissed on February 18, 2020, for Matthew’s “failure to take the further steps required to secure review of the appeal within the period of time prescribed by applicable court rule or order of the Court.”4 not enforceable against [ Roberta ]’s claims[

. ]” For the reasons set forth hereafter , however, we determine that Trustee has no appellate standing to challenge the order , and dismiss the appeal.
Discussion

“ The right to appeal is purely statutory, and where a statute provides no right to appeal,
none exists. ” Aldridge v. First Financial Ins. Co. , 828 S.W.2d 734, 735 (Mo.App. 1992).
W here a statute provides for an appeal , “[s] tanding is a threshold requirement. Without it, a court has no power to grant the relief requested.” In re Estate of Scott , 913 S.W.2d 104, 105 (Mo.App. 1995). Prior to addressing the merits of a claim on appeal, we “must determine whether [the] issues present a justiciable controversy.” Schweich v. Nixon , 408 S.W.3d 769, 773 (Mo. banc 2013). “Justiciability is a ‘prudential’ rather than a jurisdictional doctrine.” Id. “A justiciable controversy exists where [1] the plaintiff has a legally protectable i nterest at stake, [2] a substantial controversy exists between parties with genuinely adverse interests, and [3] that controversy is ripe for judicial determination.” Id. (quoting Mo. Health Care Ass’ n v. Attorney Gen. of Mo. , 953 S.W.2d 617, 620 (Mo. banc 1997)). “The first two elements of justiciability are encompassed jointly by the concept of ‘standing.’” Id. at 774. “Prudential principles of justiciability, to which this Court has long adhered, require that a party have standing to bring an action.” Id

. (quoting State ex rel. Williams v. Mauer , 722 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Mo. banc 1986)). “Standing requires that a party have a personal stake arising from a threatened or actual injury.” Id. (quoting Williams , 722 S.W.2d at 298). “Courts have a duty to determine if a party has standing prior to addressing the substantive issues of the case.” CACH, LLC v. Askew , 358 S.W.3d 58, 61 (Mo. banc 2012) (internal citation omitted). In Interest of M.B.F. , 528 S.W.3d 480, 483

– 84 (Mo.App. 2017). Lack of standing cannot be waived, and this Court may consider the issue sua sponte

. State ex rel. Ma thewson v. Bd. of
Election Comm’ rs of St. Louis County , 841 S.W.2d 633, 634 (Mo. banc 1992).
After this Court received the parties’ briefs in this appeal , we , sua sponte , issued an order raising the issue of Trustee’s standing to bring this appeal

. In that order, we observed that, generally, “[a] party is ‘aggrieved’ when the judgment operates prejudicially and directly on his personal or property rights o r interest and such is an immediate and not merely a possible remote5 consequence.” Stockman v. Safe

- Skin, Corp. , 36 S.W.3d 447, 449 (Mo.App. 2001). We also compared holdings from In re Knichel , 347 S.W.3d 127, 130 (Mo.App. 2011) (lawyer acting as “specia l co

- trustee” held to not be “an aggrieved party under Missouri law” to challenge a judgment finding a breach of fiduciary duty and removing the lawyer’s firm as “special co

trustee”), with Matter of T.R. Potter, Jr. Exempt Tr. , 593 S.W.3d 556, 562 (Mo. Ap p. 2019) (co

- trustee who was “subject to a money judgment for attorney’s fees and expenses” was “an aggrieved party”). Further, the order permitted the parties to file written suggestions on the issue
of Trustee’s standing to pursue this appeal

. Trustee , by way of his written suggestions, presents alternative arguments supporting his standing to appeal the order . He asserts , first, that there is no requirement that he, in his cap acity as trustee, be aggrieved by the order to pursue this appeal under sec tion 456.4

- 420.3 . His second
and alternative argument has two prongs. Trustee asserts , on one hand, that he is aggrieved by
the order and, on the other hand, that he has standing on behalf of some trust beneficiaries who
themselves are aggrieved

. None o f Trustee’s argument s have merit

. Section 456.4

- 420.3 Requires an Appellant be Aggrieved by a Trial Court Order to have Standing to Appeal that Order “In general, our courts have held that an executor, administrator or trustee is not aggrieved by a decree or judgment determining his duty and the rights of the beneficiaries, or both, and so has no such interest as will support an appeal, inasmuch as he is protected by the
decree.” Matter of Heisserer , 797 S.W.2d 864, 869 (Mo.App. 1990); see also Krause v. Tullo , 835 S.W.2d 488, 491 (Mo.App. 1992) (finding that a personal representative of a decedent’s estate had no standing to challenge a judgment construing the in terrorem clause in the decedent’s will).6 As discussed and explained by the Eastern District o f our Court in Knichel , nothing in Missouri’s adoption of the MUTC, effective January 1, 2005, changed that requirement.
Knichel , 347 S.W.3d at 130. “Trusts ... are governed by chapter 456, the Missouri Uniform Trust Code (MUTC), which does not address app ellate standing, so any right of appeal must lie in the general appeals statute, section 512.020.” Id. The Knichel court then proceeded to determine that the trustee appellant there was not aggrieved by the trial court judgment being appealed, as require d by section 512.020, and therefore, did not have standing to appeal that judgment. Id. at 130

- 32.
Trustee here argues that he is not required to be aggrieved by the order to have standing to appeal the order. This argument is premised on Trustee’s narro w reading of section 456.4

- 420, the statute that was adopted by the legislature in 2014, effective August 28, 2014, and relied on by Roberta in cha llenging the enforceability of the no - contest clause.
O ur Supreme Court recently summarized the procedure under this statute as follows: The statute provides “for an interlocutory determination whether a particular ... petition ... by the interested person would trigger application of the no

- contest clause or would otherwise trigger a forfeiture that is enforc eable under applicable law and public policy.” Section 456.4

- 420.1. Upon consideration of the language of the clause, the relationship of the clause to the trust instrument, and the facts of the petition, the circuit court makes a determination that “resul t[s] in the no

contest clause being enforceable to the extent of the court’s ruling.” Section 456.4

- 420.4. This determination is subject to appeal . Section 456.4

- 420.3. Knopik v. Shelby Investments, LLC , 597 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Mo. banc 2020) (emphasis added)

. Here, we are confronted with such an appeal . The first two sentences of s ection 456.4

- 420.3 are pertinent and dispositive : An order or judgment determining a petition described in subsection 1 of this section shall have the effect set forth in subsections 4 and 5 of this section, and shall be subject to appeal as with other final judgments

. If the order disposes of fewer than all cla ims for relief in a judicial proceeding, that order is subject to interlocutory appeal in accordance with the applicable rules for taking such an appeal

.7 Section 456.4

- 420.3 (emphasis added).
In considering section 456.4

- 420.3, “[t] he primary rule of sta tutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the legislature from the language used, to give effect to that intent if possible, and to consider the words used in their plain and ordinary meaning.” Wolff Shoe Co. v. Dir. of Revenue , 762 S .W.2d 29, 31 (Mo. banc 1988). “ ‘The legislature is presumed to have intended what the statute says, and if the language used is clear, there is no room for construction beyond the plain meaning of the law.’ ” State ex rel. KCP & L Greater Mo. Operations Co. v.
Cook , 3 53 S.W.3d 14, 17 (Mo.App. 2011) (quoting State v. Sharp , 341 S.W.3d 834, 839 (Mo.App. 2011)).
Trustee asserts that no provision in section 456.4

- 420.3 expressly requires that an appellant be “aggrieved” in order to pursue an appeal of a no

- contest clause d etermination under
section 456.4

- 420 . In support of this assertion, Trustee focuses exclusively upon the second
sentence in section 456.4

- 420.3 as giving him standing to pursue an int erlocutory appeal of the
order. Trustee ignores and fails to address , h owever, that the first sentence in s ection 456.4

- 420.3 provides that “ [a]n order ... shall be subject to appeal as with other final judg ments ” and
that “the order” referenced at the beginning of the second sentence addressing an interlocutory appeal refers b ack to “an order” as referenced in the first sentence. Thus, under the plain and ordinary language in the first two sentences of section 456.4

- 420.3 when read together , an y order determining the enforceability of a no

- contest clause under section 456.4

- 420 is subject to appeal “as with other final judgments.” As a general matter , and as discussed and applied in Knichel , appeal s of “final judgments” are governed by s ection 512.020. See section 512.020(5) ; Knichel , 347 S.W.3d at
130

. That statute states , in pertinent part, that “[a]ny party to a suit aggrieved by any judgment8 of any trial court in any civil cause from which an appeal is not prohibited by the constitution, nor clearly limited in special statutory proceedings, may take his or her appeal to a court having appellate jurisdiction[.]” Section 512.020 (emphasis added )

. A party purporting to appeal a final judgment is required to be aggrieved by that judgment in order to have standing to appeal. Id. We conclude, therefore , that to pursue an appeal of a trial court order under section 456.4

- 420.3 “as with other final judgments,” the appealing party must be aggrieved by th e challenged trial

court order in the same manner as required for an appeal of a final judgment governed by section
512.020. Trustee ’s argument otherwise , which focuses exclusively on the second sentence of
section 456.4

- 420.3 in isolation, ignores and fails to account for the legislature’s use of the word s

“ an order” and the phrase “as with other final jud gments” in the first sentence of that section

. Trustee is not Aggrieved by the Order
Trustee alternati ve ly argues that he is aggrieved by the order because the trial court’s
refusal to enforce the no

- contest clause impedes his duty to protect, enforce , and defend the
terms of the trust s
. Trustee supports this argument with case citations and citations to the MUTC, which generally stand for the principle that trustees have such a duty. None of those general sources , however, address or involve the application of the asserted duty in relation to a trustee’s standing to pursue an appeal

. Moreover , Trustee fails to demonstrate in the context of this case how the order impinges in any respect upon this asserted duty

. The order has no impact upon Trus tee’s ability to protect, enforce , and defend the validity of the 2017 Restatements. See Finkle

- Rowlett Revocable Tr. Dated August 28, 2009 v. Stiens , 558 S.W.3d 95, 100 (Mo.App. 2018) (validity of trust instrument containing no

- contest clause must be res olved first before that clause can be enforced). Rather, similar to the trustee in Finkle

- Rowlett , id. , Trustee’s argument here assume s the validity of the 2017 Restatements in the first instance . If the 2017 Restatements are9 ultimately determined to be invalid, however, then the no

- contest clause is not enforceable, see id. , as the order so determines. On the other hand, i f the 2017 Restatements are ultimately
determined to be valid, t he order then informs Trustee as to the identity of the beneficiaries ultimately entitled to distribution s from the t rusts . I n that latter context , the order determines and
delineates Trustee’s duties under the trusts , and Trustee’s compliance with the order, protects
Trustee

. Heisserer , 797 S .W.2d at 869

. “‘A party is ‘aggrieved’ when the judgment operates prejudicially and directly on his personal or property rights or interest.’” Knichel , 347 S.W.3d at 130 (quoting Betty G. Weldon
Revocable Trust ex rel. Vivion v. Weldon ex rel. Weldon , 231 S.W.3d 158, 168 (Mo.App. 2007)). Here, Trustee does not allege or argue nor is there anything in the record to indicate that , in his role as trustee, any of his personal or property rights or interests are at stake because of the
order. Trustee , therefore, is not “aggrieved” by the order

. Aggrieved Beneficiary do es not Provide Trustee Standing to Appeal Finally, w e turn to Trustee ’s argument that he need not have been aggrieved in his capacity as trustee to have standing to appeal so long as h e is representing some of the trust beneficiaries who are themselves aggrieved. This argument is premised on the MUTC’s definition for “interested persons,” which include beneficiaries and any others having a property right in or claim against a trust est ate which may be affected by a judicial proceeding. It also includes fiduciaries and other persons representing interested persons

. The meaning as it relates to particular persons may vary from time to time and must be determined according to the particu lar purposes of, and mat ter involved in, any proceeding[.] S ection 456.1

- 103(11) (emphasis added).
Trustee may be correct that the provisions of section 456.1

- 103(11) could grant a trustee standing to pursue an appeal as a representative on behalf of beneficiaries under certain
circumstances

. Knichel , supra , addressed this issue in dicta stating :10 T he second sentence of the definition clearly enables a fiduciary or personal representative to participate in litigation on behalf of trust beneficiaries. Thus, a fiduciary would have standing under section 512.020 to appeal on behalf of a beneficia ry aggrieved by the lower court’ s judgment. It does not follow, however, that the foregoing statutes grant a fiduciary standing to advance his personal interest s unrelated to those of his protectees. 347 S.W.3d at 130 ; see also section 456.3

- 303(6) (stating that “a trustee may represent and bind
the beneficiaries of the trust” under certain exceptions that are discussed by this opinion, infra )

. The Knichel C ou rt then proceeded to determine that the facts and circumstances presented in that

case

— the removal of a special co

- trustee for breaching his fiduciary duties

— amounted to “self

interested grievances” that provided no legal basis for standing to appeal. Id. at 131

– 32. A different result was reached, however, in Potter , supra
. The Court in that case
determined that the trustee appellant there had standing to pursue his claims on appeal on two bases. F irst , the money judgment against the trustee for attorney’s fees and expenses gave him standing to challenge those awards . 593 S.W.3d at 562. Second , which is relevant here, because
the trustee there was acting as a fiduc iary on behalf of a beneficiary’s “son and any future children, as contingent remainder beneficiaries of the trust assets, [who] are aggrieved by the probate court’s interpretation of the trust [,] ” the trustee had standing to challenge that interpretation. Id.
Trustee argues that t his case is akin to the latter rationale for sta nding identified in Potter
and that , under that rationale, he has standing because he is pursuing the beneficiaries’ rights
under the 2017 Restatements ( presumably excluding those of his mother, Roberta, whom, as Trustee claims, should be disinherited unde r the no

- contest clause)

. 9 We disagree. This case is distinguishable from Potter because T rustee is , individually, also a trust beneficiary. Although

9 Although not implicated in our analysis , we observe that section 456.8

- 803 provides that “[i]f a trust has two or more beneficiaries, the trustee shall act impartially in investing, managing, and distributing the trust property, giving due regard to the beneficiaries’ respective interests.”11 there are provisions in the MUTC that may permit trustee repre sentation of beneficiaries as suggested by Trustee , section 456.3

- 303(6) permits that representation only “[t]o the extent there
is no conflict of interest between the representative and the person represented or among those being represented with respect to a particular question or d ispute [.]” 10 (Emphasis added.)
Trustee’s authority under the trusts , in which he can disburse trust principal amounts he “deems advisable” to beneficiaries, notably himself, presents a clear conflict of interest that precludes him, by section 456.3

- 303(6 ) , from stepping in the shoes of and representing any other
beneficiaries of the trusts

. Matthew could have but chose not to appeal the order in his capacity as an aggrieved trust beneficiary. 11 As a conflicted t rustee under section 456.3

- 303(6 ) , however,
Trustee does not have statutory authority and standing to appeal on behalf of himself as a beneficiary or on behalf of any other trust beneficiary

. For the foregoing reasons, Trustee lacks standing to appeal the order

. Decision The appeal is dismissed. 12

GARY W. LYNCH, P.J.

– OPINION AUTHOR NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, J.

– CONCURS WILLIAM W. FRANCIS, JR., J

– CONCURS

10 Section 456.3

- 303 provides, in relevant part, that “ To the extent there is no conflict of interest between the representative and the person represented or among those being represented with respect to a particular question or di spute:

... (6) a trustee may represent and bind the beneficiaries of the trust [.]” 11 See footnote 8

. 12 All motions that were filed and taken with this appeal are hereby denied.