Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ALICE MARIE RIDING AS TRUSTEE OF NATION RAR TRUST, ET AL, Appellant, v. UNITED CONSUMER CREDIT UNION, DEFENDANT, JASON NEATHERY, Respondent.
Alice Marie Riding 1 appeals the judgment of dismissal of her petition against Respondents. Riding alleges three points of error on appeal. Because Riding, as an individual, was not a party to the action below, she has no standing to appeal the judgment. See Henson v. Merob Logistics, LLC, 670 S.W.3d 142, 150 (Mo. App. W.D. 2023) ((“[O]nly a party has standing to attempt to set aside or appeal from a judgment. In order to be a party, a person must either be named as a party in the original pleadings or be later added as a party by appropriate trial court orders.”) (citation modified)). Riding filed the petition in the underlying case identifying herself as the “Trustee of the Nation RAR Trust.” The petition was never amended to name herself, in her individual capacity, as a party. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
FOOTNOTES
1. The caption lists Alice Marie Riding, as Trustee of Nation RAR Trust, as the Appellant, which is how Riding filed her petition in the Circuit Court. Although the suit was filed in the circuit court by Riding in her capacity as trustee, Riding appears pro se on appeal and emphasizes that she proceeds on appeal in her individual capacity as trust beneficiary enforcing personal equitable rights, not in a representational capacity on behalf of Nation RAR Trust. “A statutory entity such as a trust or corporation must appear in court through counsel, and, while an individual property owner may appear pro se, a trustee cannot.” Collison v. Dir. of Revenue, 621 S.W.3d 165, 168 (Mo. banc 2021). Pro se non-lawyer trustees, even if they are themselves trust beneficiaries, may not represent a trust in court, as such representation would constitute an “unauthorized practice of law.” Mayer v. Lindenwood Female Coll., 453 S.W.3d 307, 313-15 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014). This is, presumably, one of the reasons the petition was dismissed by the Circuit Court.
Gary D. Witt, Judge
All concur
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: WD88396
Decided: April 28, 2026
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)