Purser v. Purser
2013 Ark. App. 449
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Kenneth Purser died intestate in Mississippi in Dec. 2007; he was survived by wife Ginger and three adult children: Kenneth Jr., Jimmy, and Kim (Buchanan).
- Mississippi probate opened; W.E. Davis appointed administrator; the administrator filed an inventory including Arkansas real property in Cleburne County.
- Buchanan claimed she received a deed to the Arkansas property (quitclaim purportedly dated Oct. 22, 2003); siblings disputed validity, noting the deed was notarized 2003 but undated and recorded after decedent’s death in 2008.
- The Mississippi chancery court, on stipulation, ruled the 1999 conveyance to Mid‑South Investments void and found by clear and convincing evidence that the 2003 deed conveyed title to Buchanan and that the property was not part of the estate; appellants did not appeal that order.
- Appellants then filed in Arkansas to set aside Buchanan’s deed and quiet title, alleging invalid delivery and that title never passed; Buchanan moved to dismiss based on Rule 12(b)(8), res judicata, and judicial estoppel.
- The Arkansas trial court granted dismissal (citing the Mississippi order), and appellants appealed; the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed the dismissal as a summary‑judgment matter because the court considered out‑of‑state pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Purser appellants) | Defendant's Argument (Buchanan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Mississippi probate court decided the validity of the Arkansas deed | Mississippi order did not validly determine title; Arkansas court must adjudicate validity | Mississippi order determined Buchanan holds title; Arkansas should defer | Court: Mississippi order did in fact purport to decide validity, but that determination is void for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Mississippi court had subject‑matter jurisdiction to determine title to Arkansas realty | Probate court lacked jurisdiction over out‑of‑state land title; subject‑matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by stipulation | Parties stipulated; Mississippi court could resolve inventory inclusion | Court: Subject‑matter jurisdiction over land title in another state cannot be conferred by parties; Mississippi lacked jurisdiction to determine Arkansas title |
| Preclusive effect (res judicata) of Mississippi order on Arkansas action | Mississippi order is void for lack of jurisdiction and thus not preclusive | Order is final on the merits and should bar relitigation in Arkansas | Court: Because Mississippi lacked jurisdiction, its judgment is not a valid judgment of a competent court for res judicata purposes |
| Application of judicial estoppel to bar appellants’ Arkansas claims | Appellants consistently maintained deed invalidity; no inconsistent positions | Appellants successfully maintained contrary position in Mississippi; estoppel should apply | Court: Judicial estoppel does not apply because appellants did not take inconsistent positions to manipulate the process |
Key Cases Cited
- Flemens v. Harris, 319 Ark. 659 (explaining that parties cannot consent to confer subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- Servewell Plumbing, LLC v. Summit Contractors, Inc., 362 Ark. 598 (parties cannot confer subject‑matter jurisdiction by agreement)
- Tolley v. Tolley, 210 Ark. 144 (court cannot directly affect title to land in another state)
- Lockley v. Lockley, 257 Ark. 603 (distinguishing valid foreign decrees from invalid ones that determine foreign land title)
- Kyzar v. City of W. Memphis, 360 Ark. 454 (motion to dismiss converted to summary judgment when court considers matters outside pleadings)
- Nielsen v. Berger‑Nielsen, 347 Ark. 996 (same rule on conversion to summary judgment)
- Parker v. Perry, 355 Ark. 97 (elements and effect of res judicata require a valid judgment by competent court)
- Dupwe v. Wallace, 355 Ark. 521 (elements required to establish judicial estoppel)