was to be allocated between the parties upon the sale of the property. The intent of both parties is relevant in construing an ambiguous contract. See Lacey v. State Bd. of Registration For The Healing Arts, 131 S.W.3d 831, 841 (Mo.App. W.D.2004) (“evidence concerning the practical construction which the parties themselves place upon a contract ]” is included with other evidence in ascertaining the parties’ intent in ambiguous contract and evidence of the parties’ interpretation before the controversy erupts is particularly influential). Although Ms. LeKander argues that the estate offered no testimony disputing her position on the matter, it was Ms. LeKan-der’s burden to prove her claim; the estate was not required to present evidence to overcome it. See Munday, 887 S.W.2d at 736 (<HOLDING>); State, Dept. of Soc. Servs. v. Beckner, 813
holding that the burden of proving a violation of the idea lies on the party seeking relief during the administrative process holding that if an attorney is discharged without cause he is entitled to a charging lien for the reasonable value of his services rendered prior to the date of the substitution of counsel where 1 his representation was entirely competent and successful up until his discharge 2 any potential conflict of interest was disclosed and the plaintiff chose to continue to be represented by the attorney and 3 the discharge of the attorney occurred solely because of a fee dispute holding that an attorney seeking payment for legal services rendered to the decedent had the burden of proving his claim and the trial court was free to reject even documentary and uncontested proof recognizing that the burden of proof is an essential element of the claim itself and that one who asserts a claim has the burden of proof that normally comes with it recognizing that the party seeking attorney fees bears the burden of proving entitlement to those fees