Dawson v. Dawson
2017 Ark. App. 584
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Decedent Ray H. Dawson died June 2006; wife Luetta Dawson filed for probate and to be appointed personal representative in December 2006; will admitted and she appointed January 2007.
- Notice was published and two claims were filed in February 2007; no substantive administration took place and the record is silent from 2007–2011.
- On September 16, 2011, the circuit court issued a Rule 41(b) notice warning cases inactive >12 months would be dismissed; appellant’s counsel submitted a response requesting the case remain open but did not appeal any later dismissal.
- Appellant filed a petition to reopen the estate and for partial distribution on January 5, 2016, claiming discovery of a previously unadministered LLC asset; the court reopened the estate and ordered distribution that same day.
- Decedent’s son, Ray Dawson, Jr., moved to vacate on jurisdictional grounds (case previously dismissed, estate not settled, personal representative not discharged, and limitations/service issues); the court granted the motion and vacated the reopening and distribution orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of 2011 dismissal under Rule 41(b) | Gruber: dismissal notice defective (attachment missing; no proof of service); court failed to act on counsel’s request to keep case open | Dawson Jr.: case was dismissed for inactivity and no timely appeal was taken | Court: Appellant waived challenge; too late to appeal the 2011 dismissal under Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 4 |
| Authority to reopen estate under Ark. Code §28-53-119 | Gruber: newly discovered asset and "just cause" warranted reopening | Dawson Jr.: §28-53-119 permits reopening only after estate has been settled and personal representative discharged; neither occurred here | Court: §28-53-119 does not apply because estate was not settled and PR not discharged; reopening was unauthorized |
| Jurisdiction to admit will / reopen after dismissal and limitations | Gruber: reopening was permissible to effectuate will; public policy disfavors intestacy | Dawson Jr.: dismissal ended the probate action; five-year statute for admitting wills and procedural/service requirements precluded reopening | Court: Found lack of jurisdiction to reopen; did not decide intestacy issue; noted statute of limitations argument supports lack of jurisdiction |
| Validity of the January 5, 2016 distribution order | Gruber: distribution appropriate to distribute discovered LLC interest to devisee | Dawson Jr.: distribution issued by a court that lacked jurisdiction after dismissal | Court: Distribution vacated as product of a jurisdictionally defective reopening |
Key Cases Cited
- Seymour v. Biehslich, 371 Ark. 359, 266 S.W.3d 722 (2007) (standard of review for probate proceedings)
- Estate of Taylor v. MCSA, LLC, 2013 Ark. 429, 430 S.W.3d 120 (2013) (clarifies clearly erroneous standard and de novo review of legal questions)