Wilson v. Pulaski Bank & Trust
383 S.W.3d 919
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment in a fraud and negligence case involving a bank, Calaway, and the decedent’s sister, Wilson.
- Wilson, as personal representative of Richard Calaway’s estate, sued the bank for negligently allowing Calaway to add her name to the decedent’s account and for resulting losses.
- Wilson amended to seek a constructive trust on Hartford insurance proceeds allegedly due to the decedent’s daughter, and added Calaway and Hartford as defendants.
- Decedent changed beneficiaries repeatedly, ultimately naming Calaway as sole beneficiary at a time when Wilson contends he lacked capacity to do so.
- Evidence included affidavits from Calaway and Hartford agent Logue, plus conflicting deposition and witness testimony regarding decedent’s capacity and intent.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to both the bank and Calaway on several claims, which Wilson challenged on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive trust viability | Wilson argues Calaway’s affidavit creates genuine issues of material fact for a constructive trust. | Calaway contends the affidavits support no triable issue, warranting summary judgment. | Summary judgment affirmed; construct trust issue resolved in Calaway’s favor. |
| Bank's negligence obligation for adding name to account | Wilson asserts bank breached duty by permitting Calaway’s name without decedent’s present verification. | Bank asserts guideline compliance and lack of evidence of negligence. | Summary judgment affirmed for bank; Wilson failed to raise a material fact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harvest Rice, Inc. v. Fritz & Mertice Lehman Elevator & Dryer, Inc., 365 Ark. 573 (2006) (standard for summary judgment factual issues)
- Wagner v. General Motors Corp., 258 S.W.3d 749 (Ark. 2007) (fact issues may exist even without disputes on facts)
- Mathews v. Garner, 751 S.W.2d 359 (Ark. App. 1988) (self-serving affidavits admissible under Rule 56(e))
- Gatzke v. Weiss, 289 S.W.3d 455 (Ark. 2008) (development of arguments requires authority and clarity)
- Pyle v. Robertson, 858 S.W.2d 662 (Ark. 1993) (summary judgment burden and proof framework)