Breach of Fiduciary Duty (2011).  Obtained judgment in favor of defendants in a claim against trustees for abuse of fiduciary duty.  Rossiter & Boock successfully obtained summary judgment on behalf of their clients, getting the plaintiff’s case dismissed with no payment by defendants and without the cost of a trial.  

Pedestrian Injury (2010).  Successfully obtained a verdict which was fifty percent higher than the last offer in a pedestrian/automobile collision where liability and causation was heavily disputed in a St. Louis County case. 

Premises Liability (2010).  Successfully obtained a verdict against the City of St. Louis for failing to timely repair a dangerous condition on a City of St. Louis road which resulted in a one-car accident.  Defendants made no offer to settle before trial.   

Petition to Determine Title/Abuse of Durable Power of Attorney (2010).  Successfully represented one sibling in a claim against the other sibling to challenge transfers of money and property out of their mother’s account before her death.  Transfers were made under a durable power of attorney.  Obtained judgment of $86,000.00.  

Insurance Negligence Claim (2010). Obtained jury verdict against insurance brokerage company for failing to maintain a worker’s compensation insurance policy for a construction business.  Judgment entered for exact amount requested by plaintiff’s attorney at trial. 

Automotive Collision (2010).  Successfully obtained a verdict in excess of the defendant’s policy limits, and almost twice the last offer, in a trial in the City of St. Louis.  (2010).

Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Durable Power of Attorney (2009).  Obtained jury verdict against attorney-in-fact who abused durable power of attorney.  Also obtained judgments for punitive damages and attorney fees.

Forgery/Undue Influence (2008).  Just prior to her death from cancer, woman allegedly signed deeds transferring her real estate holdings to common law husband.  All transfers were proven to be forgeries.  Judgment in the amount of $180,000.00 entered in favor of the heirs.  

Disputed Life Insurance Benefits (2008).  Obtained summary judgment in favor of an ex-wife awarding her the proceeds of disputed life insurance benefits in federal court.

Automotive Collision (2008.)  Successfully obtained a punitive damage verdict against a drunken driver in Madison County, Illinois.  

Trust Contest/Family Farm (2007).  Obtained judgment in favor of farmer against sister by successfully challenging amendment to mom’s Trust that would have transferred large portion of farm to sister.  Farm had value of $1,600,000.00.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty – Trustee and Durable Power of Attorney (2005).  Represented beneficiary of trusts created by parents against sibling/Trustee who abused a Durable Power of Attorney and misappropriated trust assets.  Obtained judgment in client’s favor in the amount of $888,082.00, and additional judgment $21,558.00 for attorney fees.

Breach of Contract (2000).  Successfully defended Doctor and practice group against claims by disgruntled former employee.  Plaintiff sought in excess of $125,000.00 for past due compensation.  Judgment entered in the amount of $2,500.00.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty/National Trust Company (2011).  Represented class of trust beneficiaries against a national trust company for failing to properly administer at trust, and ignoring the interests of those beneficiaries.  Obtained settlement of $355,000.00, including attorney fees.

Will/Trust Contest (2010).  Defended large trust company in a will and trust contest.  Case was settled at no loss to the trust company.

Legal Malpractice/Failure to Probate Will (2010).  Represented will beneficiary in claim against attorney who failed to timely probate will of decedent.  Obtained settlement of $100,000.00.  

Automobile Collision (2010).  Settled automobile collision case in St. Clair County, Illinois for $650,000.00 on behalf of two retirees where no lost wages were alleged and physical injuries had essentially resolved.

Environmental Litigation - Oil and Gas (2008-2010).  Obtained dismissals, without payment of any settlement monies, for a local gasoline pipeline in multiple cases alleging personal injury due to benzene exposure.

Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Shareholder Derivative Suit (2009).  Successfully represented Co-Trustees of Trust that owned land and a factory.  Co-Trustees also owned stock in company that operated the factory.  Settled all claims for value in excess of $1,700,000.00.

Family Farm/Petition to Set Aside Deed and Ownership of Brokerage Account (2009).  Defended Illinois farmer in action by family members to set aside title to family farm and ownership of brokerage account.  Value of assets at issue exceeded $1,000,000.00.  Case settled in farmer’s favor for nominal payment to Plaintiffs.

Medical Malpractice (2009).  Successfully settled a medical malpractice claim for the death of an infant arising from overuse and misuse of a vacuum extractor during a labor.

Wrongful Death (2007).  Obtained settlement of $1,320,000.00 for family of driver killed in construction zone automobile accident.

Undue Influence/Lack of Capacity/Fraud (2005).  Obtained settlement of $550,000.00 in favor of estate and against friend of decedent who attempted to gain control of decedent’s assets by adding his name to her accounts as joint owner and beneficiary.  Decedent suffered from the effects of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease at the time of the disputed transactions. 


Reported Appellate Cases

Stabler v. Stabler, 326 S.W.3d 561 (Mo.App. E.D. 2010)
Where the plaintiff pleads that she is beneficiary of a trust, but does not attach a copy of the trust to the petition, plaintiff has pled sufficient facts to have standing to initiate a breach of fiduciary duty claim against trustees, and the court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss.  

Estate of Posey v. Bergin, 299 S.W.3d 6 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009)
Though the probate court has a legal duty to inquire into the status of every ward and ensure that a guardian is discharging his or her responsibilities, the court should not review the day-to-day decisions made by the guardian.  The court should give due consideration to a guardian’s exercise of discretion and should only focus on the core issue of the ward’s best interests.

Moore Automotive Group v. Sandy Goffstein, et al. 301 S.W.3d 49 (Mo. 2009)
A plaintiff’s failure to object to garnishment interrogatory answers did not preclude a direct action against garnishee for unjust enrichment and fraudulent transfer of funds.  In this case, the Missouri Supreme Court overruled existing Appellate Court law to the contrary.  

Celtic Corporation v. Tinnea, 254 S.W.3d 137 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008)
In Missouri, lack of consideration or inadequate consideration is not a sufficient reason for setting aside a deed; there must be some other compelling circumstance beyond a mere lack of consideration.  Even if consideration for a deed is inadequate, the operative effect of the deed cannot be defeated in the absence of fraud, mistake, duress, or other inequitable incidents.  Additionally, a court should not allow the use of parol evidence when a deed is unambiguous and complete on its face.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Lane, 248 S.W.3d 67 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008)
Where evidence shows that a decedent was physically and mentally debilitated at the time of the execution of a change of beneficiary form for a life insurance policy and that someone had to guide his hand to sign the form only two days prior to his death, a finding that the change of beneficiary form is not effective because decedent did not intend to execute it is supported by substantial evidence.

Marren v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, 84 F.3d 1068 (8th Cir. 1996)
When terms of a life insurance policy are ambiguous and extrinsic evidence exists that bears on the interpretations of those terms, the insurance policy raises genuine issues of material fact for a jury to resolve.  Therefore, it is improper for a court to grant summary judgment in such a situation.  Instead, a jury must examine issues of fact presented by the extrinsic evidence in order to determine the intended meaning of the insurance policy.


DISCLAIMER: The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements.