When a parent dies, discovering that an inheritance differs from what the family discussed can be painful. The questions become even harder when one sibling controls the trust and another believes an investment account was diverted away from its intended recipient.
In Jennings v. Miner, No. WD88464 (Mo. App. W.D. September 22, 2026), the Missouri Court of Appeals addressed that situation. Its decision highlights an important distinction: a person may lack the right to ask a court to change a trust but still have a potential claim against someone who wrongfully interfered with an expected inheritance.
For Missouri families, the case shows why the documents, account ownership, and specific conduct behind a disputed inheritance all matter.
The Family Dispute: Real Estate for One Child, Investments for Another
Leroy and Gwendolyn Jennings created separate revocable trusts and later amended them. Their son, Ronald Jennings, alleged that his parents intended to leave their real estate to their daughter, Debra Miner, and their stock accounts to him, with the expectation that the children would receive roughly equal amounts.
The written trusts, however, left the real estate and remaining trust assets to Miner. They expressly left nothing to Jennings through the trusts, explaining that he had received previous advances and would receive at least one equity account outside the trusts.
According to Jennings's petition, later family conversations confirmed that his mother wanted him to receive the investment accounts. He alleged that Miner assured them she would honor that plan and that further estate planning changes were unnecessary.
Jennings also alleged that Miner subsequently took their mother to a financial firm and obtained her signature on paperwork supposedly confirming that an account would pass to him. Instead, he alleged, the paperwork kept or placed the account in a trust or arranged for it to pass to Miner. The disputed account was allegedly worth between $100,000 and $500,000.
These were allegations, not established facts. Because the appeal concerned dismissal of the lawsuit, the court accepted properly pleaded facts as true solely to decide whether the claims could proceed.
Can Someone Excluded from a Missouri Trust Ask the Court to Change It?
Jennings asked the court to modify or reform the trusts so he could receive the disputed account if it was a trust asset. Reformation involves correcting trust terms to reflect the creator's intent when a qualifying mistake affected the document. Modification can address circumstances the trust's creator did not anticipate.
The appellate court held that Jennings lacked standing to initiate those proceedings. “Standing” means the legal right to bring a particular claim.
Under section 456.4-410.2 of the Missouri Uniform Trust Code, the proceedings at issue may be commenced by a trustee or beneficiary. Jennings was neither. He could not establish standing simply by arguing that a successful lawsuit would make him a beneficiary.
The court also upheld dismissal of his breach-of-trust claim. Because he was not a beneficiary, Miner owed him no duty under the trusts supporting that claim.
The practical lesson is that being a child of the person who created a trust does not automatically give you the right to seek its modification or reformation.
When Can an Inheritance Interference Claim Proceed in Missouri?
Jennings separately sued Miner in her individual capacity for tortious interference with inheritance. This claim focuses on wrongful conduct that prevents someone from receiving an inheritance or gift they otherwise would have received.
As the opinion explains, the claim requires more than disappointment over an unequal distribution. It involves an expected inheritance, independently wrongful conduct, an intent to prevent receipt of the inheritance, a causal connection between that conduct and the loss, and resulting damages. The availability of an adequate probate remedy also matters.
Here, Jennings alleged a specific transaction involving a specific account. He claimed that Miner knowingly presented misleading paperwork to their mother and thereby prevented the account from passing to him.
The court concluded that those allegations were sufficient to survive dismissal. Although the petition's descriptions of the conduct did not use traditional tort labels, the alleged actions could correspond to a recognized independent wrong.
The court did not decide that Miner committed fraud or that Jennings was entitled to the account. It allowed him to continue pursuing that limited claim.
Why the Available Probate Remedy Matters
An inheritance interference lawsuit is not an automatic alternative whenever a trust or estate dispute becomes difficult. The opinion discusses Missouri decisions requiring a claimant to first attempt to obtain a probate remedy or show that an adequate remedy is unavailable.
An adequate remedy means an available procedure capable of providing full relief; it does not mean the claimant is guaranteed to win.
In this appeal, Miner's dismissal motion did not argue that an adequate probate remedy barred the interference claim. The appellate court therefore could not uphold its dismissal on that ground. That procedural detail limits how broadly the decision should be read.
What the Court Allowed—and What It Did Not
The court revived only the interference claim concerning the investment account allegedly worth $100,000 to $500,000. It affirmed dismissal in every other respect.
Other issues, including alleged rights to farm rental income, cash intended for a grandson, and provisions for surviving family members, were abandoned on appeal. The separate fiduciary-duty claim was also abandoned.
For clients, this illustrates why identifying and preserving each claim matters. A broad allegation that an estate plan was unfair cannot substitute for the facts and legal requirements supporting a particular remedy.
Protecting Your Estate Plan and Evaluating a Disputed Inheritance
For families creating an estate plan, the case offers a practical reminder: trust provisions and investment-account arrangements should work together. If the goal is equal treatment, review whether changing asset values and beneficiary designations still accomplish that goal. Family assurances can leave substantial uncertainty when the documents say something different.
For someone questioning an inheritance, useful records may include the trust and amendments, account ownership and beneficiary forms, correspondence, and evidence of the disputed transaction. A careful review can help distinguish a lawful distribution from conduct that may support a claim.
Beal & Whitener LLP assists clients in St. Louis and throughout Missouri with trust disputes, probate litigation, and estate planning. If you believe an inheritance was diverted, or want your estate plan to clearly carry out your wishes, contact our firm to discuss your circumstances.
