429 S.W.3d 384
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Arkansas Court of Appeals, Division III, No. CV-13-49, appeal from White County Circuit Court rulings on probate orders.
- Tommy Hamm died in 2006; will left house to Lynda and five acres, metal shop, and grain bins to Jerry.
- Lynda, as executrix and residuary beneficiary, petitioned to disinherit Jerry in March 2012.
- Jerry filed a waiver of inventory and accounting and a petition for partial distribution shortly after Lynda’s petition.
- Hearing held August 16, 2012; Lynda hospitalization led to a contested continuance request which the court denied.
- The court entered three orders in September 2012: denial of disinheritance, and two partial-distribution orders to Jerry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the will’s in terrorem clause disinherit Jerry for timely waiver? | Lynda argues Jerry’s tardy waiver violated the clause. | Hamm contends waiver timely; clause not triggered by delay, or prejudice not shown. | Waiver timely; in terrorem clause not triggered. |
| Did Jerry secret estate assets to be grounds for disinheritance? | Lynda asserts concealment under several statutes. | Evidence of misappropriation is insufficient; record lacking corroboration. | Insufficient evidence of secreting assets; no basis to disinherit. |
| Was the L-shaped five-acre parcel a proper distribution to Jerry? | Surveyed tract shape could not justify distribution as drawn. | Orders valid; Standridge controls timing unattached to hearing date; description acceptable. | Distribution affirmed despite L-shaped description. |
| Did hospitalization justify a continuance of the August 16 hearing? | Lynda couldn’t appear due to hospitalization; continuance required. | Court acted within discretion; no proffer showing due-process deprivation. | Court did not abuse discretion; continued as held. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seymour v. Biehslich, 371 Ark. 359 (2007) (probate appeals de novo review; no reversal of factual findings absent clear error)
- Standridge v. Standridge, 304 Ark. 364 (1991) (standard for reviewing probate rulings; discretion in continuances)
- Standridge v. Standridge, 298 Ark. 494 (1989) (judicial orders effective only when filed; respect for procedural rules)
- Lytle v. Zebold, 235 Ark. 17 (1962) (construction of will provisions; no-contest clauses)