Bell v. Bank of America, N.A.
2012 Ark. App. 445
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Bells are beneficiaries of the Shull Family Revocable Trust; Bank of America resigned as trustee in Dec 2009 with Bells allowed to appoint a successor.
- Bells filed Jan 13, 2010 petition to terminate the trust; after hearings, the circuit court denied termination and approved the bank’s accounting, with BancorpSouth named successor trustee on Apr 12, 2010.
- BancorpSouth completed transfer of assets from Bank of America by Nov 4, 2010; Bells later obtained an attorney’s fee ruling against BancorpSouth.
- Bells requested detailed WLJ invoices for fees paid to WLJ in Oct 2010; BancorpSouth provided a summary statement; Bells sought full invoices.
- Best terms: in Apr 29, 2011, the circuit court approved payment of WLJ fees and discharged Bank of America from further duties; Bells appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bells are entitled to detailed WLJ billing invoices. | Bell(s) seek full WLJ invoices to assess overcharges and fiduciary breach. | Bank had already accounted; Bells were informed of payments and no mismanagement shown. | No, access denied; summaries sufficient under Salem v. Lane Processing Trust. |
| Whether the fees paid to WLJ were properly approved and the bank discharged. | Belts contend invoices and fees are excessive and warrant review. | Court reviewed in-camera statements and approved the fees; no mismanagement proven. | Affirmed; circuit court properly approved fees and discharged the bank. |
| Whether the email alleged as a threatened settlement was admissible. | Email should be excluded as improper evidence or settlement offer. | Argument altered on appeal; not preserved. | Argument not addressed due to change in basis; preserved handling not proper. |
| Whether the appeal preserved claims of judicial bias. | Bells alleged bias by the circuit court. | No timely recusal motion; not preserved. | Not preserved; no reversible bias. |
Key Cases Cited
- Salem v. Lane Processing Trust, 72 Ark.App. 340 (2001) (beneficiary entitled to information reasonably necessary to enforce rights; balanced against need for records)
- Ball v. Foehner, 326 Ark. 409 (1996) (arguments cannot be changed on appeal)
- Edmundson v. Estate of Fountain, 358 Ark. 302 (2004) (probate proceedings reviewed de novo)
- Hayes v. Otto, 2009 Ark. App. 654 (2009) (pro se appellants treated equally; standard applied)
- City of Ft. Smith v. McCutchen, 372 Ark. 541 (2008) (preservation requirement for appellate arguments)
- Ruby G. Owen Trust ex rel. Owen, 2012 Ark. App. 381 (2012) (equity jurisdiction over trusts; courts of equity have exclusive jurisdiction)