Section 20.3 Exclusive and Concurrent Jurisdiction

• Library: Estate Administration 2014 Supp

A. (§20.3) Exclusive and Concurrent Jurisdiction

Generally, jurisdiction of the probate division attaches at the time an application for letters of administration is made. Novak v. Akers, 669 S.W.2d 644, 648 (Mo. App. S.D. 1984); State ex rel. Shriners’ Hosps. for Crippled Children v. Hensley, 385 S.W.2d 820, 827 (Mo. App. E.D. 1964). The probate court is vested with inherent ancillary powers to compel an inventory and determine what property constitutes the assets of an estate. Novak, 669 S.W.2d at 648. Because a discovery-of-assets action necessarily involves disputes of title, it appears axiomatic that exclusive jurisdiction would lie in the probate court, which has the exclusive authority to administer estates. Certainly, Missouri courts have routinely stated the rule that the probate court is vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction of discovery-of-assets actions. See:

Estate of Clark, 83 S.W.3d 699, 703 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002)

Chaney v. Cooper, 954 S.W.2d 510, 519 (Mo. App. W.D. 1997)

Brazeal v. Redburn, 638 S.W.2d 771, 772 (Mo. App. S.D. 1982)

Caldwell v. First Nat’l Bank of Wellston, 283 S.W.2d 921, 923 (Mo. App. E.D. 1955)

Any remaining confusion regarding the issue of exclusive jurisdiction was resolved by the Supreme Court of Missouri in Estate of Williams v. Williams, 12 S.W.3d 302 (Mo. banc 2000). In Williams, the Court declared unequivocally:

A discovery of assets proceeding is an action to determine a decedent estate’s title, right to possession, or both of specific property. Sec. 473.340.1. The probate division of the circuit court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over a proceeding to discover assets pursuant to sec. 473.340. Thus, a common law action alleging the conversion of property belonging to a decedent’s estate and seeking a common law claim for punitive damages associated with that conversion may be pursued in a discovery of assets proceeding in the probate division of the circuit court.

Id. at 305 (citations omitted).

Claims for tortious interference with inheritance expectancy muddy the question of exclusive jurisdiction, albeit in a slightly different context. When the decedent’s estate plan involves a trust, rather than an estate, the circuit court would appear to have concurrent jurisdiction because the plaintiff is without standing to bring an action for discovery of assets. In 1988, the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals declared that a plaintiff could not pursue a claim for tortious interference if it is duplicative of probate remedies or if probate remedies have not first been exhausted. McMullin v. Borgers, 761 S.W.2d...