Section 24.26 Extrinsic Versus Intrinsic Fraud Under § 472.013

• Library: Estate Administration 2014 Supp

2. (§24.26) Extrinsic Versus Intrinsic Fraud Under § 472.013

Whether the fraud is considered to be intrinsic or extrinsic fraud, § 472.013, RSMo 2000, should provide a vehicle for obtaining relief from any fraud by direct action against the perpetrator without the need to reopen an estate. While the estate was reopened for fraud under § 472.013 in In re Estate of Snyder, 880 S.W.2d 596 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994) (discussed in §24.7 above), properly construed, § 472.013 should not require, nor does it even contemplate, a proceeding to reopen an estate. Rather, it provides for a separate, independent claim and action against the perpetrator of the fraud. See Bosworth v. Sewell, 918 S.W.2d 773, 776 n.5 (Mo. banc 1996) (discussed in §24.8 above); In re Estate of Taylor, 675 P.2d 944 (Mont. 1984) (discussed in §24.17 above).

As noted in §24.25 above, although intrinsic fraud will not support an independent, equitable action to set aside a final judgment or order of the probate division, it should support a claim under § 472.013 against the perpetrator of the fraud for...