A recent Missouri Court of Appeals decision offers two important lessons for families involved in trust disputes. First, Missouri courts can use powerful remedies—including a constructive trust—to recover property obtained through undue influence. Second, a party who intends to appeal must act quickly to preserve appellate rights. Complying with a judgment, even to avoid contempt, may be treated as accepting that judgment and may prevent appellate review.

In DeVoy v. Lisek, Case No. SD39171 (Mo. App. S.D. July 29, 2026), the Southern District dismissed an appeal arising from the alleged financial exploitation of an elderly woman with significant cognitive impairment. The appellate court did not reverse or affirm the trial court's judgment on the merits. Instead, it held that the appellants had voluntarily acquiesced in the judgment by surrendering property without first obtaining a stay through a supersedeas bond.

A Family Trust and Increasing Cognitive Decline

Sara Jo Barnett created and funded the Barnett Family Trust more than 30 years ago. She was initially the sole trustee and lifetime beneficiary, and her three daughters were to receive the trust assets after her death.

By 2016, Barnett's memory and cognition had begun to deteriorate. She was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease and mild cognitive impairment. In early 2017, a neurologist concluded that she lacked the capacity to make sound medical or financial decisions safely and in her own best interest. Her family developed a plan that would allow her to remain in her California home with supervision and assistance. The trust was amended to add family members, including her daughter Carmen Lisek, as co-trustees.

The Alleged Transfer and Use of Trust Assets

According to the appellate opinion, problems arose soon after Lisek became a co-trustee. Credit-card information was redirected to Lisek's Missouri address, and nearly all funds in the trust's bank account were withdrawn. After Barnett's attorney demanded that the money be returned and instructed Lisek to stop moving funds or interfering with Barnett's care, the funds were redeposited and Lisek was removed as co-trustee.

Barnett was later taken from California to Missouri and lived with the Liseks for approximately two months. During that period, roughly $251,000 was transferred from the trust's account to a Missouri account associated with Barnett and Lisek. Another $16,000 connected to Barnett's rental property and tenant security deposits was transferred to an account belonging to Lisek. The disputed funds were used, in part, to acquire an $11,834 sewing machine and a $160,000 home in Republic, Missouri. Lisek's daughter lived in the home without paying rent to Barnett or the trust.

After Barnett returned to California, a court declared her incompetent for medical decision-making purposes. Her home and rental property ultimately had to be sold because she lacked liquid assets for living expenses. Missouri Adult Protective Services investigated and concluded that the Liseks had financially exploited her.

The Trial Court Imposed a Constructive Trust

The co-trustees sued in Missouri to recover the trust assets. Following trial, the circuit court found that the Liseks had a confidential and fiduciary relationship with Barnett and had abused that relationship through undue influence. The court concluded that the conduct resulted in misappropriation of trust assets and unjust enrichment.

To restore the property, the court imposed a constructive trust. A constructive trust is an equitable remedy that can require a person holding wrongfully obtained property to return it to its rightful owner. The court ordered the Republic house and sewing machine conveyed back to the trust. It also entered a money judgment of $252,616.59, which included remaining misappropriated funds, prejudgment interest, attorney fees, and expenses.

Why the Missouri Court of Appeals Dismissed the Appeal

The appellants filed a notice of appeal but did not first obtain a supersedeas bond. A supersedeas bond generally allows an appellant to stay enforcement of a judgment while the appeal is pending. When the appellants did not return the house and sewing machine as ordered, the respondents initiated contempt proceedings.

The appellants then asked the trial court for a stay and permission to post a bond. The trial court denied the request because the notice of appeal had already been filed and the court no longer had authority to grant the requested relief. Before the court entered a contempt judgment, the Liseks surrendered the sewing machine and delivered a quitclaim deed for the house.

That compliance proved decisive. Missouri law generally prevents a party from accepting a judgment while simultaneously challenging its validity. The appellate court held that surrendering the property was a voluntary act recognizing the judgment. The desire to avoid contempt did not make the surrender involuntary. Because the appeal challenged the findings supporting recovery of all the assets—not merely a separate calculation unique to the unpaid money judgment—the remaining unsatisfied monetary award did not save the appeal. The court dismissed the case as moot.

What Missouri Families and Trustees Should Take From the Decision

For families, the case illustrates why unusual transfers, abrupt changes in access to an older relative, redirected financial mail, and sudden purchases benefiting a caregiver or family member deserve prompt attention. Trustees and attorneys-in-fact owe serious duties. A family relationship does not excuse self-dealing, misuse of trust assets, or taking advantage of a vulnerable person.

The decision also shows the value of tracing assets. Even when money has left a trust account, a court may be able to identify property purchased with those funds and impose a constructive trust requiring its return. Bank records, deeds, credit-card statements, communications, medical evaluations, and witness testimony may all become important evidence.

For litigants, the appellate lesson is immediate: preserving an appeal begins before the notice of appeal is filed. A party facing an enforceable judgment should promptly consult appellate counsel about a stay, a supersedeas bond, and the consequences of partial or complete compliance. Waiting until collection or contempt proceedings begin may leave the trial court unable to provide the needed protection.

A Narrow Appellate Holding With Broad Practical Consequences

DeVoy v. Lisek is principally an appellate-procedure decision. The Southern District dismissed the appeal because of acquiescence; it did not conduct a full merits review of the undue-influence judgment. The court nevertheless observed that briefing deficiencies would have hindered review and that the appellants' claims would not have succeeded on the merits.

The practical message is clear. In Missouri trust litigation, the steps taken immediately after judgment can be as consequential as the evidence presented at trial. Families concerned about financial exploitation should act promptly to preserve records and protect assets. Parties considering an appeal should obtain advice before transferring property, paying a judgment, or filing a notice of appeal.

Speak With a Missouri Trust Litigation Attorney

Disputes involving undue influence, diminished capacity, fiduciary misconduct, or missing trust property often require fast and coordinated action. An attorney can evaluate available emergency relief, help trace and recover assets, and preserve important trial and appellate rights. If you believe a vulnerable family member or trust has been financially exploited—or if you need to enforce or appeal a trust judgment—seek legal advice as early as possible.