Case Name: Carolyn MILLION, Respondent, v. James Edward BOWMAN, Individually and as Trustee of the Bowman Trust Joint Living Trust, Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2013-09-10
Citations: 407 S.W.3d 716
Docket Number: No. WD 75648
Parties: Carolyn MILLION, Respondent, v. James Edward BOWMAN, Individually and as Trustee of the Bowman Trust Joint Living Trust, Appellant.
Judges: Before Division Four: JAMES E. WELSH, C.J., ALOK AHUJA, J., and EDITH MESSINA, Sp. J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 407
Pages: 716–716

Head Matter:
Carolyn MILLION, Respondent, v. James Edward BOWMAN, Individually and as Trustee of the Bowman Trust Joint Living Trust, Appellant.
No. WD 75648.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Sept. 10, 2013.
Sharon Kennedy, St. Joseph, MO, for appellant.
Dan Smith, Rockport, MO, for respondent.
Before Division Four: JAMES E. WELSH, C.J., ALOK AHUJA, J., and EDITH MESSINA, Sp. J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM:
Carolyn Million sued James Edward Bowman in the Circuit Court of Nodaway County, alleging that Bowman should be removed as trustee of the Bowman Trust Joint Living Trust, and that the court should order an accounting of the Trust, sale of the Trust's assets, distributions from the Trust to Million, and other relief. After removing Bowman as trustee and striking his pleadings for various discovery violations, the court found that Bowman had breached his fiduciary duties as trustee of the Trust. The court ordered that proceeds of the sale of Trust assets be distributed to Million, denied Bowman compensation and reimbursement of expenses from the Trust, and ordered him to pay Million's attorney's fees. Bowman appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in striking his pleadings, and in awarding Million her attorney's fees. We affirm. We also grant Million's motion for an award of attorney's fees on appeal, and remand to the circuit court to determine Million's reasonable appellate fees. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, the parties have been provided an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).