Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Bosworth v. Sewell

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided March 26, 1996No. 78033Published

1ConcurrenceRobertson, Judge

For the reasons following, I can do no more than concur in the result reached by the principal opinion.

The principal opinion overrules Haas v. Haas, 504 S.W.2d 44 (Mo.1973), concluding that the failure to give actual notice as required by section 473.033, RSMo 1994, tolls the running of the statute of limitations for actions to contest a will, section 473.083.1, RSMo 1994, at least until the probate estate is closed. I find no fault in Haas. Indeed, Ham acknowledges what the principal opinion ignores: The right to contest a will is purely statutory. Section 473.083.1 admits no exceptions to…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  2. Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. PopeSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
  3. William B. Tanner Co. v. Estate of FesslerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1981
  4. New York Merchandise Co. v. StoutWashington Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Estate of Busch v. Ferrell-Duncan Clinic, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1985

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API