Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co.

Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District, Division One · 1975 · Property

Propertywastetestamentary dispositionpublic policydemolitionpublic policytestamentary conditionsdemolition

Facts

Louise Woodruff Johnston owned a house at 4 Kingsbury Place in St. Louis and, in her will, directed her executor to have the home razed, sell the land, and transfer the sale proceeds to the residue of her estate. Kingsbury Place was a private residential subdivision governed by a trust indenture designed to preserve it as desirable high-class residence property, and the surrounding homes were architecturally significant. Evidence showed the house and land were worth about $40,000, but after demolition costs the vacant lot would yield only about $650 net, causing a loss of roughly $39,350 to the estate, while also reducing neighboring property values and harming the neighborhood's architectural continuity. Plaintiffs alleged nuisance, violation of restrictive covenants, and that the demolition directive was contrary to public policy.

Issue

May neighboring property owners and subdivision trustees obtain an injunction preventing an executor from carrying out a will provision directing demolition of a residence when the directive appears capricious, would inflict substantial loss on the estate and neighboring properties, and would harm the community? Also, do those plaintiffs have standing to raise that public-policy challenge?

Rule

A testamentary condition directing destruction of estate property is unenforceable when it is merely capricious, serves no apparent good purpose, and its enforcement would cause substantial harm to the estate, neighboring property owners, and the public, because such a condition violates public policy. Plaintiffs have standing to raise such a public-policy challenge if they plead and prove a personal, legally protectible injury in fact caused by the challenged action.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cincinnati, Nora Feld owns a townhouse next door to a residence in the Oak Terrace enclave. The decedent's will directs the executor of the estate to demolish that residence before selling the lot, and Nora presents evidence that demolition will reduce the value of her own home by $18,000 and alter the immediate visual character of the block where she lives.

If Nora seeks an injunction on the ground that the testamentary demolition instruction is void as against public policy, is she the proper plaintiff to raise that issue?

Explanation. Standing exists when the plaintiff pleads and proves a personal, legally protectible injury in fact caused by the challenged action. A neighboring owner who shows depreciation of her own property and injury to her immediate residential surroundings is not merely asserting a generalized grievance. The majority opinion treated such direct economic, aesthetic, and environmental harms as sufficient to support standing.