446 S.W.3d 217
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Ten siblings dispute 150 acres conveyed to the McCall Family Revocable Living Trust; Donna Grunwald as successor Trustee opposed by siblings.
- Siblings seek termination of the trust, removal of Grunwald as successor trustee, and an accounting; Grunwald seeks declaratory judgment that a handwritten amendment by their mother is valid.
- Prior deed litigation (2006–2010) resolved: McCall incapacitated at execution; transfers to trust/Grunwald upheld; Grunwald remained successor trustee.
- Current case includes Grunwald’s declaratory-judgment claim and siblings’ petition for accounting/removal; the circuit court granted Grunwald summary judgment and directed verdict in her favor on the declaratory-judgment claim.
- On direct appeal, the court affirmed the directed verdict and other rulings; on cross-appeal, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings on the siblings’ petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial notice of prior testimony preserved? | Grunwald argues judicial notice was improper. | McCall contends the issue was not preserved for review. | Not preserved; affirmed. |
| Directed verdict proper for failure to introduce the handwritten amendment? | Grunwald presented testimony about the mother’s intent to amend the trust. | Handwritten document not admitted into evidence; cannot prove amendment. | Directed verdict proper; reversal not warranted. |
| Recusal/judicial-bias claim preserved? | Grunwald alleges bias against her. | No timely motion to recuse; waiver applies. | Claim waived; affirmed. |
| Res judicata/collateral estoppel applicability? | Grunwald argues earlier deed litigation bars current claims. | Current claims arise from different time and acts; not barred. | Reversed; remanded for further proceedings on petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massengale v. State, 319 Ark. 743, 894 S.W.2d 594 (1995) (Ark. 1995) (need for timely objection to admissibility of evidence for preservation of error)
- Travis Lumber Co. v. Deichman, 2009 Ark. 299, 319 S.W.3d 239 (Ark. 2009) (preservation of objection required for in-limine rulings)
- Ashley v. Ashley, 2012 Ark. App. 230 (Ark. App. 2012) (recusal must be timely to preserve issue)
- Powhatan Cemetery, Inc. v. Colbert, 104 Ark. App. 290, 292 S.W.3d 302 (2009) (Ark. App. 2009) (recusal timing matters; issue waived if delayed)
- Carmical v. City of Beebe, 316 Ark. 208, 871 S.W.2d 386 (1994) (Ark. 1994) (determines when res judicata applies across related suits)
- Deer/Mt. Judea Sch. Dist. v. Kimbrell, 2013 Ark. 393, 430 S.W.3d 29 (Ark. 2013) (res judicata scope in related litigation)
- Breckenridge v. Breckenridge, 2010 Ark. App. 277, 375 S.W.3d 651 (Ark. App. 2010) (judicial estoppel in litigation)
- Rodriguez v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 180, 200 S.W.3d 431 (2004) (Ark. 2004) (evidence-evaluative standard for admissibility)