Source: http://www.ecases.us/case/mo/c2445691/sebree-v-rosen
Timestamp: 2020-07-03 22:51:56
Document Index: 216252573

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 242', '§ 242', '§ 578', '§ 324', '§ 227', '§ 230', '§ 227', '§ 230', '§ 571', '§ 577', '§ 678', '§ 523', '§ 284']

Frank P. SEBREE, Administrator with Will Annexed of the Estate of Sarah Rosen, Deceased, Morris Rosen, Rose Silverman, and Meyer Rosenwasser, Appellants-Respondents,
Jacob ROSEN, Jacob Rosen, As Trustee of the Trust Estate Created under and by Virtue of the Purported Inter Vivos Trust Agreement of Pete Rosen and Sarah Rosen, Dated May 22, 1952, and Trust Agreement Supplements Thereto Dated July 24, 1953, and February 27, 1954; Jacob Rosen, As Executor of the Estate of Pete Rosen, Deceased, Betty Rosen, Sue Hyken, Carl Hyken, Mary Bodney, Bernard Bodney, Sam Rosen, and Avrom Rosen, Herbert Rosen, Joyce Rosen, Beverly Hyken, David Rosen, and Mary Sue Rosen, Pro Ami, Respondents-Appellants,
Raymond Rosen and Charlotte Rosen, Pro Ami, Sylvia Bain, Dorothy Hyken, Melvin Silverman, Sarah Lena Mendelsohn, and Dorothy Rosen, Respondents.
September 11, 1961. Motion for Clarification and Modification of Opinion Denied October 11, 1961.
Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' appeal for violations of Civil Rule 83.05, V.A.M.R. We find the brief of plaintiffs-appellants subject to criticism, as is also defendants-appellants' brief. However, we conclude that the interests of justice require a decision on the merits. Civil Rule 83.09. Vest v. Bialson, 365 Mo. 1103, 293 S.W.2d 369, 373 [3], 63 A.L.R. 2d 504. The motion to dismiss is overruled.
In re Kaimann's Estate, 360 Mo. 544, 229 S.W.2d 527, 529[5, 10], states: "The law in this state is that a son has the burden of proof of an alleged gift to him by his father in his lifetime. * * * `* * * [W]here the relation of trust or confidence exists, it [the gift] is presumptively voidand the burden is upon the donee to rebut this by showing the absolute fairness and validity of the gift, and that it is entirely free from the taint of undue influence. This sound and wholesome *883 doctrine applies as well to suits of law as to proceedings in equity, and is as broad in its scope as the existence of the confidential and fiduciary relation. * * *' Reed v. Carroll, 82 Mo.App. 102, loc. cit. 108." See Spencer v. Barlow, 319 Mo. 835, 5 S.W.2d 28, 32; Nelson v. Hammett, Mo., 189 S.W.2d 238, 243.
The continuance of a going business is always subject to the usual hazards of the trade; and this 10% take of the gross revenues for management and trustee's fees caused, we think, the operation of the St. Regis to be speculative and detrimental to the interests of the beneficiaries. See Vest v. Bialson, 365 Mo. 1103, 293 S.W.2d 369, 381 [18], 63 A.L.R. 2d 504. A difference exists between income from rents, interest and dividends and income from the conduct of a business or trade. In the latter case, for instance, there is repeated use of the same money. See, among others, In re Larrabee, *889 98 N.J.Eq. 655, 130 A. 195 [1, 2]; In re Sidenberg's Estate, 204 A.D. 255, 197 N.Y.S. 767; Restatement, Trusts, 2d, § 242, c; Scott on Trusts, 2d Ed., § 242.1; Bogert, Trusts and Trustees, 2d Ed., § 578, nn. 57, 58. A separate bank account was maintained for the operation of the St. Regis Hotel. During 1956 Jake transferred $11,500 from the big trust account to the St. Regis Hotel account because the St. Regis Hotel had to have money to operate.
"In the absence of an express and sufficient authority therefor, the employment of trust property in trade or speculation, or in manufacturing, is a gross breach of trust on the part of the trustee, even though such investment is approved of by his own judgment, and is made with honest intent." 90 C.J.S. Trusts § 324, p. 516; Restatement, Trusts, 2d, § 227, f, § 230, m; Scott on Trusts, 2d Ed., § 227.6, § 230.4, stating it is the duty of a trustee to dispose of a testator's business and invest the proceeds in proper trust investments unless he is authorized to carry on the business by the terms of the will. An intent on the part of the settlor to continue his business "must be clearly proved." Bogert, Trusts and Trustees, 2d Ed., § 571, nn. 15, 16; § 577, n. 48. A stated reason is that "the trustee would have to be gifted with special business talents" not usually or reasonably expected of trustees in general. Id., § 678. See Eufaula Nat. Bank v. Manasses, 124 Ala. 379, 27 So. 258, 259; In re Wind's Estate, 1 Misc. 2d 260, 145 N.Y.S.2d 188 [2]; Clark v. Tennessee Chemical Co., 167 Ga. 248, 145 S.E. 73 [4].
Plaintiffs first say defendants' attorneys are not entitled to compensation out of the trust assets because Jake breached the trust, stressing Lipic v. Wheeler, 362 Mo. 499, 242 S.W.2d 43, 50[12], which cites, without developing, the texts and annotation mentioned in the third paragraph above. The settlors authorized the trustee to employ attorneys "for the benefit of the trust estate." Paragraph "Second, (c)" supra III, (d). Defendants' attorneys are entitled to compensation out of the trust assets for their successful defense of the trust. Murphey v. Dalton, Mo., 314 S.W.2d 726, 730[3-5], 67 A.L.R. 2d 1278; City of St. Louis v. McAllister, 302 Mo. 152, 257 S.W. 425, 426[1]. The criterion for an allowance of attorney fees out of a trust estate is the reasonableness of such compensation, whether one or more attorneys necessarily participate. See 54 Am.Jur. 415, § 523; 90 C.J.S. Trusts § 284, p. 399; Annotation, 66 A.L.R. 2d 1172.
DocketNumber： 47330
Citation Numbers： 349 S.W.2d 865
Filed Date： 9/11/1961
george-hunter-raffety-individually-and-as-trustee-of-the-raffety-estate , 241 F.2d 594 ( 1957 )
Carpenter v. Carpenter , 267 S.W.2d 632 ( 1954 )
In Re Kaimann's Estate , 229 S.W.2d 527 ( 1950 )
Poole v. Campbell , 289 S.W.2d 25 ( 1956 )
Cornwell v. Huffman , 258 N.C. 363 ( 1963 )
Schroeder v. Duenke , 265 S.W.3d 843 ( 2008 )
McDonald v. McDonald , 814 S.W.2d 939 ( 1991 )
Erickson v. Civic Plaza Nat. Bank of Kansas City , 422 S.W.2d 373 ( 1967 )
Ison v. Ison , 410 S.W.2d 65 ( 1967 )
Wills v. Whitlock , 139 S.W.3d 643 ( 2004 )
Wilkie v. Elmore , 395 S.W.2d 168 ( 1965 )
Russell v. Russell , 427 S.W.2d 471 ( 1968 )