T. E. C. v. K. B.

Missouri Court of Appeals

T. E. C. v. K. B.

635 S.W.2d 363, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3424

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 8, 1982

DocketNo. 12398

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 635 S.W.2d 363 (T. E. C. v. K. B.) 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

T. E. C. v. K. B., 635 S.W.2d 363, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3424 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

MAUS, Chief Judge.

By its judgment in this declaratory judgment action, the circuit court declared the two illegitimate minor plaintiffs to be the children of a named decedent. The defendants included the administratrix of the intestate decedent’s estate and, but for the plaintiffs, the decedent’s heirs at law. The administratrix in her representative capacity and as one of those heirs at law has appealed.

The appellants’ first point is that the trial court erred because “a cause of action to establish paternity does not survive the death of the alleged father”. Because of the limited record on appeal and points relied on, the review of this case is very limited. This court need not and will not explore questions such as the relationship between the circuit court and the probate division of the circuit court and the right of an administratrix to appeal from such a judgment.

Assuming the same would otherwise govern this action, new § 474.060 is not applicable. The judgment in this case was entered June 8, 1981. New § 474.060 was effective June 10, 1981.

The appellants’ first point has been ably and succinctly answered. “We can find no logical reason to hold that an action to establish the paternity of an illegitimate child abates upon the death of the putative father.” N. R. v. R. J. D., 588 S.W.2d 76, 79 (Mo.App.1979). Neither can this division. The first point is denied.

The appellants’ other point is that the trial court erred in not dismissing the individual heirs “from the lawsuit.” “It is well recognized that a Declaratory Judgment Act, such as ours, is applicable generally to determine the parentage of a child and the status of a child with relation to an alleged natural or adoptive parent.” State v. Murphy, 354 S.W.2d 42, 43 (Mo.App.1962). Also see S_ v. W_, 514 S.W.2d 848 (Mo.App.1974); In Re L_, 461 S.W.2d 529 (Mo.App.1970). Rule 87.04 in part provides “[w]hen declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration.” The trial court did not err in denying the individual heirs’ motion for dismissal. The judgment is affirmed.

BILLINGS, P. J., TITUS and FLANI-GAN, JJ., concur.

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

MAUS, Chief Judge.

By its judgment in this declaratory judgment action, the circuit court declared the two illegitimate minor plaintiffs to be the children of a named decedent. The defendants included the administratrix of the intestate decedent’s estate and, but for the plaintiffs, the decedent’s heirs at law. The administratrix in her representative capacity and as one of those heirs at law has appealed.

The appellants’ first point is that the trial court erred because “a cause of action to establish paternity does not survive the death of the alleged father”. Because of the limited record on appeal and points relied on, the review of this case is very limited. This court need not and will not explore questions such as the relationship between the circuit court and the probate division of the circuit court and the right of an administratrix to appeal from such a judgment.

Assuming the same would otherwise govern this action, new § 474.060 is not applicable. The judgment in this case was entered June 8, 1981. New § 474.060 was effective June 10, 1981.

The appellants’ first point has been ably and succinctly answered. “We can find no logical reason to hold that an action to establish the paternity of an illegitimate child abates upon the death of the putative father.” N. R. v. R. J. D., 588 S.W.2d 76, 79 (Mo.App.1979). Neither can this division. The first point is denied.

The appellants’ other point is that the trial court erred in not dismissing the individual heirs “from the lawsuit.” “It is well recognized that a Declaratory Judgment Act, such as ours, is applicable generally to determine the parentage of a child and the status of a child with relation to an alleged natural or adoptive parent.” State v. Murphy, 354 S.W.2d 42, 43 (Mo.App.1962). Also see S_ v. W_, 514 S.W.2d 848 (Mo.App.1974); In Re L_, 461 S.W.2d 529 (Mo.App.1970). Rule 87.04 in part provides “[w]hen declaratory relief is sought, all persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the declaration.” The trial court did not err in denying the individual heirs’ motion for dismissal. The judgment is affirmed.

BILLINGS, P. J., TITUS and FLANI-GAN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

635 S.W.2d 363, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/t-e-c-v-k-b-moctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack