Machen v. Machen, 385 S.W.3d 278

Julia Machen, widow of Billy Ray Machen, and Randy Machen, Randy is the decedent's son; the 1996 will gave Julia a life estate with remainder to Randy, plus $10,000 to Randy and a $20,000 trust for Randy's children, with Randy as trustee.
Machen died on May 20, 2006; Randy filed objections to probate in 2007 asserting handwritten changes to the 1996 will by Mr. Machen; he claimed the changes were enforceable as a family-settlement agreement with Julia.
Julia was appointed executrix in 2008; letters testamentary filed in 2009; Randy filed suit in 2009 seeking enforcement of the altered will as a family settlement.
The circuit court held a hearing, found the handwriting on the will to be Mr. Machen’s, and found a valid family-settlement between Julia and Randy: $100,000 to Randy and $200,000 held in trust for Randy’s children.
The circuit court ordered Julia to pay $200,000 to Randy as trustee for the children and continued probate with estate assets distributed per the family settlement.
Julia appealed, arguing the handwriting did not constitute a valid change, the terms were vague, signatures disputed, and the changes were not funded; the appellate court reviewed de novo with a specific bench-trial standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the signed, handwritten changes to the 1996 will create a valid family-settlement?	Machen	Machen	Yes; the court found a valid family-settlement between Julia and Randy.
Must all interested parties sign a written family settlement for it to be enforceable in Arkansas?	Randy argues broad enforceability including interested parties beyond the decedent.	Julia argues all signatories must be included.	The settlement between Julia and Randy is enforceable; the decedent need not be a signatory.
Was the circuit court's inclusion of the decedent as a participant in the settlement reversible?	Randy's position relies on enforceability of the agreement regardless of the decedent's participation.	Julia contends decedent cannot be a party to the settlement and should be excluded.	Correct to exclude the decedent as a participant; settlement between Julia and Randy stands.

Pfaff v. Clements, 213 Ark. 852 (Ark. 1948) (family settlements favored; no strict mutuality or consideration required)
Harris v. Harris, 236 Ark. 676 (Ark. 1963) (family settlements may include those not entitled to property; enforceability varies by cogent reasons)
Turner v. Davis, 41 Ark. 270 (Ark. 1883) (family settlements may involve non-traditional distributions)
Wallace v. King, 205 Ark. 681 (Ark. 1943) (written family-settlement agreement void if not signed by all interested parties)
Moody v. Moody, 219 Ark. 5 (Ark. 1951) (binding oral family-settlement agreement to convey real estate)
Hobbs v. Cobb, 232 Ark. 594 (Ark. 1960) (consent of all interested parties can supersede will via family settlement)
Martin v. Martin, 98 Ark. 93 (Ark. 1911) (equitable aim to preserve family peace in property settlements)