Dooley v. Regions Bank
2017 Ark. App. 432
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Mary F. Dooley and Jimmy Dooley (husband) created the B‑J Trust (1994). The trust provided for lifetime needs of the settlors and ultimate distribution to their children, Belinda Shelton and Jimmy C. Dooley II.
- In their 2009 divorce, the circuit court ruled the trust irrevocable, voided an attempted modification, found the trust property was not marital property, removed Jimmy Dooley as trustee for breach, and modified trust administration; Regions Bank was appointed successor trustee. Neither party appealed.
- Mary and Jimmy later remarried (2010); Jimmy died in 2015. Mary requested distributions from the trust for her living expenses; beneficiaries objected and Regions advised Mary to seek court relief.
- Mary filed a petition (Nov. 2015) seeking distributions for support and termination of Regions as trustee. Regions and the beneficiaries moved to dismiss, asserting res judicata, collateral estoppel, and other defenses.
- The court dismissed Mary’s petition with prejudice on res judicata grounds. Mary appealed, challenging the res judicata ruling, asserting Regions is not a lifetime beneficiary, and contesting the award of attorney’s fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mary’s petition is barred by claim preclusion (res judicata) | Mary: The current claim is different and could not have been raised previously. | Regions/beneficiaries: The divorce judgment finally adjudicated Mary’s monetary interest in the trust; claim preclusion bars relitigation. | Court: Claim preclusion applies; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether Regions Bank is a lifetime beneficiary of the trust | Mary: Regions is not a lifetime beneficiary and its role should be revisited. | Regions/beneficiaries: Regions was appointed trustee by the 2009 order; Mary did not appeal that ruling. | Court: Issue is an improper collateral attack on an unappealed judgment; not considered. |
| Whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney’s fees | Mary: Fee award was erroneous and should be reversed if merits reversed. | Regions/beneficiaries: Fee award supported by dismissal and previous proceedings. | Court: Because merits affirmed, appellate review of fees unnecessary; no relief granted. |
| Whether Mary could obtain distributions after remarriage | Mary: Remarriage removed need for impartial trustee; requests support distributions. | Regions/beneficiaries: Prior adjudication resolved Mary’s entitlement to any trust interest. | Court: Previously adjudicated; res judicata bars the claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winrock Grass Farm, Inc. v. Affiliated Real Estate Appraisers of Ark., Inc., 373 S.W.3d 907 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (standard for reviewing motions to dismiss and summary‑judgment conversions)
- Bayird v. Floyd, 344 S.W.3d 80 (Ark. 2009) (treatment of pleadings vs. documents outside the pleadings; summary‑judgment principles)
- Baptist Health v. Murphy, 373 S.W.3d 269 (Ark. 2010) (explaining res judicata and standard for legal‑doctrine review)