## Facts

- Edwin and Karl Hardt, as executors of Selma J. Hartke’s estate, had authority under the will to distribute the residuary estate to charities of their choosing.
- The Hardts met with Vitae Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit corporation conducting a pro-life media advertising campaign.
- Vitae presented a written proposal describing planned media campaigns in multiple U.S. markets, with budget and market-specific details.
- The proposal contemplated a large restricted “matching” contribution, to be used in specified markets and paired with funds raised by Vitae.
- The Hardts made a substantial donation subject to conditions governing the use of the funds.
- Believing Vitae failed to comply with the gift restrictions, the Hardts sued to enforce the conditions and seek related relief.

## Issues

1. Whether donors or executors of a donor’s estate have standing under Missouri law to enforce restrictions on a completed charitable gift to a nonprofit corporation.
2. If donors lack standing, who has authority to enforce compliance with restrictions attached to charitable gifts or charitable trust-like arrangements.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals (Western District) affirmed dismissal of the petition for lack of standing.
- The court held the Hardts, as donors/executors, did not have a legally cognizable interest to enforce the restrictions after the charitable gift was completed and accepted.
- The court held enforcement of charitable gifts and charitable trust obligations is generally entrusted to the Missouri Attorney General, who represents the public interest.
- Because standing was dispositive, the court did not address whether Vitae actually violated the gift conditions.

## Legal Principles

- Standing is a question of law reviewed de novo on appeal when dismissal is based solely on lack of standing.
- A completed and accepted charitable gift is devoted to charitable purposes; absent an expressly reserved enforcement right, the donor generally retains no continuing interest sufficient to sue over administration of the gift.
- At common law and under Missouri authority, the Attorney General is the ordinary party to bring actions to enforce charitable trusts and similar restricted charitable gifts, as representative of the public interest.
- “Proper parties” other than the Attorney General may exist in limited circumstances (e.g., trustees or specially defined beneficiaries), but donors are not automatically included without statutory or instrument-based authorization.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because the Hardts, as donors and estate executors, lacked standing to enforce restrictions on a completed charitable gift to a nonprofit corporation; Missouri law generally assigns enforcement of charitable restrictions to the Attorney General acting on behalf of the public.


Hardt v. Vitae Found., Inc., 302 S.W.3d 133 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2009)