Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co.
524 S.W.2d 210 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A testamentary provision that directs the senseless and capricious destruction of valuable property is void as against public policy when the destruction provides no benefit to any person or the estate and is detrimental to the community and surrounding property owners.
Facts:
- Louise Woodruff Johnston owned a house at #4 Kingsbury Place, an architecturally significant home located in a private subdivision established by a trust indenture to be a desirable residential area of the highest class.
- Upon her death on January 14, 1973, Johnston's will directed her executor to raze (demolish) her home.
- The will further instructed the executor to sell the now-vacant land and transfer the proceeds into the residue of her estate.
- The house and land together were valued at $40,000.
- Demolishing the house would cost $4,350, and the vacant lot could be sold for no more than $5,000, resulting in a net value of only $650 and a total loss to the estate of $39,350.
- The demolition would also depreciate the value of adjoining properties by an estimated $10,000 each.
- The St. Louis Commission on Landmarks and Urban Design had designated Kingsbury Place as a city landmark, recognizing its historical and aesthetic qualities.
Procedural Posture:
- Neighboring property owners and subdivision trustees (Plaintiffs) filed a petition in the Circuit Court of St. Louis against the executor of Louise Woodruff Johnston's estate.
- The plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent the demolition of the house at #4 Kingsbury Place as directed by Johnston's will.
- The trial court initially granted a temporary restraining order against the demolition.
- After a trial on the merits, the trial court dissolved the restraining order and ruled in favor of the defendants, denying the plaintiffs' request for a permanent injunction.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's decision to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a provision in a will directing an executor to raze a valuable, architecturally significant home violate public policy when the act serves no apparent purpose, causes significant financial loss to the estate, and is harmful to the interests of the community and neighboring property owners?
Opinions:
Majority - Rendlen, Judge.
Yes, such a provision violates public policy. A testator's right to dispose of property by will is not absolute and may be limited when it conflicts with the established interests of society. Allowing an executor to carry out a capricious and senseless destruction of a valuable asset harms the beneficiaries of the estate, the neighboring property owners, and the community at large. The court reasoned that while a living person has great freedom to deal with their property, a testamentary disposition is subject to greater scrutiny, especially when it involves an eccentric whim that serves no good purpose. Citing English and American precedents, the court found a strong public policy against the waste of resources and held that it could enjoin a destructive act that benefits no one and harms all interested parties. The court's intervention does not defeat the testatrix's primary purpose of funding the residual estate, but merely prevents the wasteful method chosen to achieve it.
Dissenting - Clemens, Judge
No, such a provision does not violate public policy. A property owner possesses the right to the free and untrammeled use of their property, which includes the right to direct its destruction upon their death. The majority opinion is based on emotion and a wispy, self-proclaimed public policy not found in statutes or clear judicial precedent. The dissent argued that courts should not create public policy but only declare what is already established, and that there is no established rule of law preventing a testator from ordering her home razed. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the demolition would constitute a legal nuisance or was forbidden by the subdivision's trust indenture. The dissent concludes that aesthetic sympathies should not interfere with considered legal judgment or be used to create a questionable legal precedent that infringes on a testator's property rights.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant limitation on the principle of testamentary freedom, asserting that a testator's right to dispose of property is not absolute. The court's decision creates a precedent allowing judicial intervention to prevent the enforcement of a will's provision when it is deemed a capricious, wasteful, and socially harmful act. This balancing act prioritizes societal interests in preserving resources and neighborhood stability over the posthumous whims of an individual. The ruling provides a legal basis for challenging destructive or eccentric will provisions that serve no rational purpose and cause harm to the estate, beneficiaries, and the public.
