Machen v. Machen
2011 Ark. App. 47
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- Machen died May 20, 2006; survived by Julia (wife) and Randy and Steven (sons).
- The 1996 will gave Julia a life estate in real property, remainder to Randy, and specified personal-property bequests (10k to Randy, 20k to Randy for grandchildren, 4 to Julia, etc.).
- Paragraph VI provided for a testamentary trust for Randy’s children; Randy later challenged probate on Nov 13, 2007, alleging changes to the will increased bequests.
- Randy alleged Mr. Machen handwritten changes (Nov. 11, 2005) increasing Randy’s bequest to 100k and grandchildren’s to 200k, and asked Julia to produce the original revised document.
- March 3, 2008 probate hearing occurred without originals; Randy testified the changes were made in the car en route to Tyler for surgery; Julia disputed the timing and location.
- Circuit court found a family-settlement agreement between Machen, Julia, and Randy, awarding Randy 200k and directing estate division accordingly; Julia appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether marked-up will constituted a family-settlement agreement, not a testamentary disposition. | Machen, Julia, Randy agreed to amend the will and honor the changes. | Handwritten changes are mere scribblings; do not meet testamentary requirements or agreement. | Yes; the marked-up document reflected a binding family-settlement agreement. |
| Whether there was valid consideration and meeting of minds for the family-settlement agreement. | Mutual desire to settle the estate constitutes sufficient consideration. | There was no true meeting of the minds or adequate consideration. | Yes; sufficient consideration and mutual assent existed. |
| Whether Julia, as a non-appointed executrix, could be bound personally by the family-settlement agreement. | Julia, as wife and personal representative, bound by agreement to distribute assets per the settlement. | Role timing is irrelevant; she denies agreement and asserts invalidity of the changes. | Julia is bound personally; the agreement affects her conduct and is enforceable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pfaff v. Clements, 213 Ark. 852 (Ark. 1948) (family settlements may lack formal consideration but preserve family harmony)
- Jones v. Balentine, 44 Ark. App. 62 (Ark. App. 1993) (limited scrutiny of consideration in family settlements; motive to settle matters)
- Green v. McAuley, 59 Ark. App. 114 (Ark. App. 1997) (family settlements encouraged; not heavily scrutinized for formal consideration)
- Bright v. Gass, 831 S.W.2d 149 (Ark. App. 1992) (interpret contract language by whole context in determining intent)
- Thurman v. Thurman, 50 Ark. App. 93 (Ark. App. 1995) (meeting of the minds evaluated by objective manifestations, not subjective intent)
- Poff v. Peedin, 374 S.W.3d 879 (Ark. App. 2010) (contracts standard applied to family-settlement agreements)
- Walpole v. Lewis, 492 S.W.2d 410 (Ark. 1973) (distinguishes family settlements from testamentary dispositions)