David Preston Kinard and Donna Kinard William Troy Kinard and Cindy Kinard Drew William Kinard and Monica Kinard Preston Cook Kinard And Mary Camille Kinard v. Michael David Kinard, as Trustee of the Wilma Kinard Revocable Trust Michael David Kinard And Tara Kinard
2023 Ark. App. 96
Ark. Ct. App.2023Background:
- Preston and Wilma Kinard owned ~600 acres conveyed by a 1984 deed that reserved life estates and specified remainder interests among grandchildren and children.
- In 2000, at Preston's request, beneficiaries quitclaimed their interests back to Preston and Wilma; Preston and Wilma then placed land into revocable living trusts that initially mirrored the 1984 distribution. The trusts expressly were revocable.
- Preston died in 2004; Wilma, as trustee, followed Preston's trust re corporate shares but later revised her own trust several times (2008 and again), ultimately giving more to her grandson Mike and less to sons Bill and David.
- In 2015 Wilma deeded the acreage to herself and executed a beneficiary deed naming Mike as the remainder beneficiary; Mike recorded the deeds in 2017. Wilma died in 2020.
- In December 2020 Bill and David sued to set aside Wilma’s transfers (claiming a family-settlement/implied contract and seeking a constructive trust or alternate relief reverting to the 2000 trust/1984 deed). The circuit court held there was no family settlement or implied contract, refused to impose a constructive trust, and found Wilma retained the absolute right to modify her revocable trust; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a family-settlement / implied contract from the 2000 quitclaims | Quitclaims and Preston’s explanations created an agreement that Wilma would maintain the 2000 trust terms | No meeting of minds; Wilma never agreed to an irrevocable arrangement; trusts were explicitly revocable | No implied/family-settlement agreement; circuit court’s finding not clearly erroneous |
| Constructive trust / unjust enrichment | Wilma’s later changes breached promises and unjustly enriched Mike; constructive trust needed to remedy | Transfers were lawful; no fraud, undue influence, or fiduciary breach; no basis for constructive trust | No constructive trust; plaintiffs failed to show grounds (fraud, duress, undue influence, mistake, or breach of fiduciary duty) |
| Alternate relief (hold 2000 trust remains or 1984 deed controls) | If constructive trust fails, court should declare earlier trust/deed controls property distribution | No legal authority supports retroactive freezing of revocable trust; argument unsupported | Court declined alternate relief; appellants offer no convincing authority, so argument rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Machen v. Machen, 385 S.W.3d 278 (Ark. 2011) (family-settlement agreements favored; require a meeting of the minds)
- City of Bethel Heights v. Gregory A. Kendrick Revocable Living Tr., 515 S.W.3d 135 (Ark. App. 2017) (no contract without meeting of the minds)
- Cox v. Miller, 210 S.W.3d 842 (Ark. 2005) (constructive trust arises to prevent unjust enrichment where property obtained by fraud, undue influence, mistake, breach of fiduciary duty, or wrongful disposition)
- AgriFund, LLC v. Regions Bank, 602 S.W.3d 726 (Ark. 2020) (standard of review for bench-trial findings)
- Pop-A-Duck, Inc. v. Gardner, 642 S.W.3d 220 (Ark. App. 2022) (appellate review: clearly erroneous standard; credibility findings for trial court)
- Wadley v. Wadley, 590 S.W.3d 754 (Ark. App. 2019) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or resolve credibility anew)
- Pitchford v. City of Earle, 576 S.W.3d 103 (Ark. App. 2019) (court will not consider arguments unsupported by convincing authority)