Ash v. First National Bank of Eastern Arkansas, 2017 Ark. App. 57

In 2012 William Ash owned 3,881 shares of Bancshares of Eastern Arkansas, Inc. outright and had an equitable interest in 4,164 additional shares held in the irrevocable William Campbell Ash Trust (trust funded by his mother); First National Bank of Eastern Arkansas is the trustee.
On July 13, 2012 Ash signed a stock certificate and a stock power at the bank; parties dispute Ash’s intent and legal effect of those signatures.
Ash contends he intended to transfer only his individually owned shares to a new (different) trust; the bank treats the signed documents as transferring the individually owned shares into the irrevocable spendthrift trust and refuses to allow Ash to liquidate the shares.
Ash sued the bank in September 2014 for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, replevin, and sought a declaratory judgment that the bank has no ownership or control over his individually owned 3,881 shares.
The circuit court granted summary judgment to the bank, holding the plain language of the signed stock power effected the transfer to the bank as trustee; Ash appealed.
The Court of Appeals found the circuit court erred as a matter of law by resolving the transfer issue without applying Arkansas securities law (the UCC provisions governing transfer of certificated securities) and reversed and remanded for proceedings under those statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ash’s signing of the stock certificate/stock power on July 13, 2012 effected a legal transfer of his individually owned Bancshares stock to the bank as trustee	Ash: the documents were ineffective to transfer the stock; he never transferred the shares to the bank	Bank: the stock power’s plain language transferred the shares to the bank as trustee, defeating Ash’s claims	Court: reversed — stock power cannot be adjudicated without applying Arkansas UCC securities law; circuit court erred by deciding transfer without applying those statutes
Whether summary judgment for the bank was appropriate on agreed facts	Ash: genuine issue exists as to intent and legal effect under governing securities law	Bank: cross-motion shows no triable issue; plain language controls	Court: parties’ cross-motions mean facts agreed, but legal issue must be decided under Arkansas securities (UCC) law; remand required

O’Neal v. Love, 476 S.W.3d 846 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (reversing and remanding when circuit court committed an error of law)