In re the Estate of Hiatt

Missouri Court of Appeals

In re the Estate of Hiatt

938 S.W.2d 273, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1989

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 10, 1996

DocketNo. 69633

StatusPublished

This text of 938 S.W.2d 273 (In re the Estate of Hiatt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Estate of Hiatt, 938 S.W.2d 273, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1989 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Shona Scott, daughter of decedent, appeals from the trial court’s order awarding the Personal Representative of the Estate, Linda Sue Hiatt, $24,854.17 for reimbursement of expenses paid to preserve the estate’s assets. Scott purports to have four points relied on, though she does not reference them in the Argument section of her brief. In her argument, she alleges the trial court erred in awarding the reimbursement expenses because the personal representative failed to uphold her fiduciary duty to the estate and that the personal representative failed to close the estate within the time required by § 473.540, RSMo 1986. We affirm.

We note that neither Scott nor any other interested party ever properly brought these questions before the trial court. Contentions not put before the trial court will not be considered on appeal. Matter of Conserv. Estate of Moehlenpah, 763 S.W.2d 249, 256 (Mo.App. E.D.1988). As nothing further is therefore before the court, we affirm the order of the trial court. Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Shona Scott, daughter of decedent, appeals from the trial court’s order awarding the Personal Representative of the Estate, Linda Sue Hiatt, $24,854.17 for reimbursement of expenses paid to preserve the estate’s assets. Scott purports to have four points relied on, though she does not reference them in the Argument section of her brief. In her argument, she alleges the trial court erred in awarding the reimbursement expenses because the personal representative failed to uphold her fiduciary duty to the estate and that the personal representative failed to close the estate within the time required by § 473.540, RSMo 1986. We affirm.

We note that neither Scott nor any other interested party ever properly brought these questions before the trial court. Contentions not put before the trial court will not be considered on appeal. Matter of Conserv. Estate of Moehlenpah, 763 S.W.2d 249, 256 (Mo.App. E.D.1988). As nothing further is therefore before the court, we affirm the order of the trial court. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

938 S.W.2d 273, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-hiatt-moctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack