Probate Court must consider objections before approving estate settlement

The probate court erred in failing to hold a hearing on objections to the settlement of a decedent’s estate before approving it, the Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals ruled on July 16.

Quentin L. Jones died March 31, 2023, in Polk County. He was survived by his wife, Mary Beth Jones, and his two children from a prior marriage, Adam Jones and Carmen Jones.

On May 25, 2023, Adam, as personal representative of the estate, filed an application for letters of administration. He then filed multiple petitions, including a petition for order to sell real property, a petition for authority to take charge of real estate and a petition to expend estate funds for reimbursement of expenses.

The probate court granted the petitions and Mary Beth was served with a notice to vacate the property.

She responded with several motions, including a motion and application to substitute a surviving spouse for heir who was wrongly appointed personal representative and an application for family allowance.

After a hearing, the probate court denied Mary Beth’s motions.

Adam filed a final settlement in December 2024, showing that the estate had an account balance of $0. The filing also reflected that the decedent’s real estate had been sold and the proceeds largely satisfied debts owed for Adam’s attorney fees, the decedent’s funeral expenses, Adam’s fees and a claim by a hospital.

The final settlement assigned a value of $0 to furniture, household goods, apparel and all other personal property.

Mary Beth filed a petition for discovery of assets, alleging that Adam took possession of the marital home and all of the personal property located in it after the decedent’s death but failed to list and value the items in the inventory.

She requested an accounting of the value of all personal property as assets of the estate. She also objected to the final settlement on numerous grounds.

The probate court entered judgment approving the final settlement, showing $0 value and no personal property, stating that no objections to the settlement or petition had been filed.

Mary Beth appealed.

In an opinion authored by Judge Jennifer R. Growcock and joined by Judges Jeffrey W. Bates and Becky J. West, the court reversed.

Section 473.590 of the Probate Code provides the procedural framework for objections to a final settlement, the court explained, and the statute provides that once objections to a final settlement are filed, a hearing on the matter is required.

Specifically, “[i]f objections are filed … a hearing on the matter shall be had.”

“Here, [Mary Beth], an ‘interested person,’ timely filed written objections to the proposed final settlement that clearly stated her objections and desired modification,” the court wrote. “The Probate Court did not hold a hearing as required by section 473.590. The statutory language of section 473.590 is plain and clear. Once objections to a settlement are filed, the probate court is precluded from approving a final settlement absent a hearing on the objections. The Probate Court erred in failing to conduct a hearing on [Mary Beth’s] Objections to Final Settlement pursuant to section 473.590.”

Also pending in the probate court at the time it issued its judgment was Mary Beth’s petition for discovery of assets, the court noted.

Discovery of assets under the Probate Code is governed by section 473.340, which clearly and unambiguously states that a petition for discovery of assets be filed in “the circuit court in which said estate is pending.”

A petition to discover assets can be filed at any time prior to approval of the final settlement, with the purpose to obtain all of the assets that should be included in the probate estate.

“Until these assets are properly accounted for, an estate’s inventory is incomplete, making it impossible to accurately determine the final value of an estate and the proper distribution to beneficiaries and creditors,” the court said. “A probate court cannot approve a final settlement until it is in the proper condition and an estate is not in the proper condition for settlement ‘unless all assets ha[ve] been accounted for and all claims paid.’ Thus, the Probate Court erred in issuing its Judgment before it resolved [Mary Beth’s] Petition for Discovery of Assets.”

The court vacated the probate court’s judgment and remanded.

John A. Parks of Humansville, who represented Mary Beth, did not respond to a request for comment.

Adam represented the estate pro se.

The case is In the Estate of Jones, No. SD38886.