Christian v. McVesting, LLC, 443 S.W.3d 578

Arkansas Court of Appeals, Division II, No. CV-14-186, reviews an order from Van Buren County Circuit Court denying intervention as of right in a will/real property dispute.
This is post-remand litigation from McVesting, LLC v. McGoon, with the question whether appellants’ motion to intervene was erroneously denied because a 2009 deed allegedly terminated their interest.
Property previously belonged to Cecil R. Curren Sr., who died in 1991; his will devised the property interests to his grandchildren (appellants).
In 2009 Curren Jr. quitclaimed his interest to McVesting, LLC, an instrument properly recorded, while Curren Sr.’s will was not probated in Arkansas until 2012 (Florida probate in 2004).
Appellants allege the 2009 deed was procured by fraud and void; the trial court held the claim time-barred under Ark. Code Ann. § 28-40-103.
Ark. Code Ann. § 28-40-103 governs probate timing and certain real-property interests; the court ultimately held the intervention decision was an abuse of discretion and remanded for timeliness adjudication.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Intervention as of right proper abuse of discretion	Appellants (as devisees) have a recognized interest in Curren Sr.’s mineral rights.	McVesting contends appellants lack a valid interest or that the interest was terminated by the 2009 deed.	Trial court abused discretion; reversed and remanded for timeliness ruling.
Fraud claim under 28-40-103(b) viability	Appellants allege fraudulent concealment of the will invoking § 28-40-103(b).	Cooper v. Tosco Corp. precludes such fraud-action-based challenge to a recorded deed.	Not resolved on this appeal; remanded for timeliness determination.

Cooper v. Tosco Corp., 272 Ark. 294 (Ark. 1981) (fraud considerations not required in Cooper; recordation effects examined)
Hunter v. Runyan, 382 S.W.3d 643 (2011 Ark. 43) (abuse-of-discretion standard for intervention as of right)