O'Dell v. Peck
2017 Ark. App. 532
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Robert Peck created the Peck Family Trust (and a Peck Marital Trust); Hannah Peck Finley is trustee and widow; Ashley Peck O’Dell is an identified beneficiary.
- In April 2015 O’Dell, through counsel, requested trustee reports under the Arkansas Trust Code (Ark. Code Ann. § 28-73-813) to inform beneficiaries about trust administration.
- Finley provided two documents labeled “accounting” covering overlapping historical periods (May 10, 2006–July 31, 2009; May 10, 2006–Dec. 31, 2013).
- April 2016: O’Dell sued for a declaratory judgment that the reports failed to satisfy the Code’s reporting requirements.
- Finley moved to dismiss under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), asserting defenses including lack of standing (claiming O’Dell was no longer a qualified beneficiary), res judicata, and time-bar; the circuit court dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing without explanation.
- O’Dell appealed; the Court of Appeals reviews standing de novo and Rule 12(b) dismissals for abuse of discretion and reverses, holding the complaint facially alleges qualified-beneficiary status and thus should not have been dismissed for lack of standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring declaratory-judgment claim over trustee reports | O’Dell alleged she is a qualified beneficiary and therefore entitled to trustee information under the Trust Code | Finley argued O’Dell lost status as a qualified beneficiary (share-cancellation) and thus lacks standing | Reversed: complaint facially alleges qualified-beneficiary status; dismissal for lack of standing was error |
| Proper procedural vehicle for affirmative defenses raised early | O’Dell argued complaint states a valid claim and should proceed; affirmative defenses require factual proof and belong in an answer | Finley treated defenses (res judicata, statute of limitations, lack of standing) in a 12(b) motion | Court notes affirmative defenses normally pleaded under Rule 8(c); Rule 12(b) may not be used to look beyond the complaint; court should not have relied on extrinsic materials when dismissing |
| Sufficiency of trustee’s reports under § 28-73-813 | O’Dell sought a judicial determination that the reports did not comply with statutory requirements | Finley contended the provided accountings satisfied obligations or that O’Dell had no standing to challenge them | Not decided on merits; remanded for further proceedings (circuit court to consider in light of Peck II) |
| Effect of prior related appellate decisions on trial court ruling | O’Dell argued circuit court should await this court’s decision in Peck II which addressed related issues | Finley argued no basis to delay or that prior rulings supported dismissal | Court recognized Peck II was not yet available to the trial court but instructed district court to consider its decision on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Peck v. Peck, 2016 Ark. App. 423 (discusses related trust disputes and informs trial-court analysis)
- Peterson v. Peck, 2013 Ark. App. 666 (prior appellate dispute between beneficiaries and trustee)
- Amos v. Amos, 282 Ark. 532 (recognizes that res judicata may be considered in a Rule 12(b) context)
- Guthrie v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 285 Ark. 95 (complaint must be taken as true; court may not look beyond complaint on Rule 12(b) motion)
- Fitzgiven v. Dorey, 2013 Ark. 346 (pleaded facts are assumed true on motion to dismiss)
- MacSteel Div. of Quanex v. Ark. Okla. Gas Corp., 363 Ark. 22 (standards for determining whether complaint states a claim)