Where a successor personal representative challenged a trial court’s amending of a judgment in which it ruled that a trust terminated based upon the failure to give the parties reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the ruling, the court had the authority to amend the judgment by interlineation and the parties had reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard, so the judgment is affirmed because the court did not err in ruling that the trust terminated and the family limited partnership dissolved due to the withdrawal of the general partner, and the court did not err in denying the motion to amend or for a new trial after the amendment by interlineation since the defendant violated is fiduciary duties as successor co-trustee and manager of the limited partnership.
Judgment is affirmed.
Keeven v. Keeven (MLW No. 71477/Case No. ED106034 – 17 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Sullivan, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis County, Whittington, J. (Daniel L. Goldberg for third-party defendant) (Robert J. Guinness for plaintiff) (Dan J. Kazanas, Chantal B. Methot and Ron Ribaudo for defendant).