425 S.W.3d 819
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Buckalew is sole life beneficiary of Fern I. Stafford Trust; after Stafford’s death Buckalew seeks termination of the Fern Trust.
- Arvest Trust Company is successor trustee and opposes termination.
- 1999 amendment created the Anderson Trust for Buckalew and set distributions; spendthrift provision included.
- After Stafford’s death in 2010, a family settlement terminated Fern Trust and transferred assets to Buckalew Trust with Buckalew empowered to receive income.
- May 2011 Buckalew petitioned to terminate under Ark. Code Ann. § 28-69-401; Arvest argued spendthrift and § 28-73-411 apply.
- Circuit court granted Arvest’s directed verdict; Buckalew appeals raising four issues about statutory applicability, change in circumstances, presumption of material purpose, and consent to termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 28-69-401 and § 28-73-411 can be used together | Buckalew contends § 28-69-401 governs; § 28-73-411 is inapplicable | Arvest asserts both provisions apply; spendthrift is a material purpose; deceased settlor consent required | Court held both procedures may apply; not exclusive; consent on deceased settlor permitted under § 28-69-401(a),(c) |
| Evidence of unforeseen change in circumstances since 1999 amendment | Buckalew argues overfunding and employment disruption frustrate trust purposes | Arvest argues no unforeseen circumstances; settlor anticipated death and control over funding | No substantial evidence of unforeseen changes; trust terms anticipated potential disruptions; affirmed. |
| Presumption that spendthrift provision is a material purpose | Buckalew argues instruments naming Buckalew show intent to pass estate | Instruments later named the trust as beneficiary; Buckalew as secondary beneficiary; presumption stands | Buckalew failed to rebut the presumption that spendthrift is a material purpose. |
| Circuit court’s refusal to consent to termination | Buckalew seeks termination with general family benefit | Consent requirement and absence of explicit ruling on general family benefit; issue not properly preserved | Court affirming; cannot address without proper ruling; underlying arguments overlap with first issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodall v. Chuck Dory Auto Sales, Inc., 347 Ark. 260 (Ark. 2001) (directed verdict standard and appellate review of evidentiary sufficiency)
- Miller v. Ark. Dep’t of Fin. & Admin., 2012 Ark. 165 (Ark. 2012) (preservation and ruling requirements on claims not ruled on below)
- Pro-Comp Mgmt, Inc. v. R.K. Enters., LLC, 372 Ark. 190 (Ark. 2008) (review of preserved issues and lower-court rulings on motions)