White v. Palo
2011 Ark. 126
Ark.2011Background
- Harriet Ehret created a living trust in 1991 and amended it in 1998 and 2008, with Phyllis White named successor trustee; White sought guardianship over Ehret in Polk County, Arkansas, January 2009, and DHS later obtained custody; guardianship proceedings and related disputes continued in Polk County while probate concerns arose in Boone County.
- Ehret died March 15, 2010, after which the guardianship could be closed or probate proceedings opened; the Polk County court issued orders in 2010 directing sale of trust assets and transfer of proceeds to a court registry to complete the trust’s distributions.
- White filed a petition to terminate guardianship upon Ehret’s death and to appoint a personal representative; Boone County began probate proceedings for Ehret’s estate.
- Polk County Circuit Court asserted jurisdiction over the trust to facilitate closure of the guardianship and sale of assets, and claimed White had consented to this jurisdiction by filing guardianship there.
- White appealed, challenging jurisdiction, the asserted sale/distribution order, and whether consent to jurisdiction was valid; this Court granted extraordinary relief finding the Polk court lacked authority to administer the trust after Ehret’s death.
- The decision notes that a guardianship terminates at the ward’s death and that the guardian’s powers and the probate court’s jurisdiction over the estate cease, requiring final accounting and proper probate process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Polk County had subject-matter jurisdiction over the trust after Ehret’s death | White contends no jurisdiction post-death; guardianship should be closed and Boone County probate invoked | Polk County asserted ongoing jurisdiction to close guardianship and sell trust assets | No jurisdiction to administer the trust post-death; court’s authority limited to guardianship closure |
| Whether White’s filing of guardianship in Polk County constituted consent to Polk County’s jurisdiction over the trust | White never consented to Polk County’s jurisdiction over the trust | Court deemed consent based on filing and proceedings in Polk County | Consent insufficient to confer continuing jurisdiction over the trust after death; jurisdiction lacked |
| Whether the writ of certiorari was the proper vehicle to review the court’s jurisdictional ruling | Writ of prohibition would be inappropriate; certiorari proper for lack of jurisdiction | Writ should be denied if there was any jurisdiction to act | Writ of certiorari appropriate to challenge lack of jurisdiction; prohibition was improper for a decision already entered |
| Whether the court could order sale/distribution of trust assets once Ehret died | Sale/distribution beyond guardianship authority violated post-death limits | Order necessary to complete guardianship closure and trust distribution | Court lacked authority to administer the trust post-death; sales/distributions exceeded jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Burch v. Griffe, 342 Ark. 559, 29 S.W.3d 722 (2000) (guardianship power ends at ward’s death; court loses jurisdiction over estate)
- Gutierrez v. Estate of Gutierrez, 786 S.W.2d 112, 113 (Tex. Ct. App. 1990) (guardian’s powers cease on ward’s death; probate court authority terminates)
- In re Peden's Estate, 185 A.2d 794 (Pa. 1962) (death terminates guardianship; need for final accounting and proper probate process)
- State ex rel. Nat’l Bank of Commerce of Seattle v. Frater, 140 P.2d 272 (Wash. 1943) (court lacking jurisdiction over guardianship post-death invalidates judgment)
- Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n v. Herndon, 226 S.W.3d 776 (Ark. 2006) (lack of jurisdiction governs extraordinary relief; certiorari appropriate for review of jurisdictional errors)