Understanding Estate, Trust, Probate And Inheritance Litigation In Terms Of "Pie"

I love pie, and it's probably my favorite type of dessert.  I have fond childhood memories of my Grandmother making fantastic butterscotch meringue pies whenever we would travel to her house back when I grew up in Oklahoma.  Every Fall I look forward to eating pecan pie, and I can cook a pretty good one using a recipe and method that I read about in Southern Living magazine many years ago.  In my opinion, cakes, cookies and other desserts pale in comparison to a big slice of pie accompanied by a big scoop of Blue Bell ice cream (or Arkansas-based Yarnell's).  

That said, I find that when talking to clients it is often helpful to explain estate, trust, probate and inheritance litigation and disputes  in terms of "pie."  For example, sometimes the question is "who gets a piece of the pie?"  There could be a conflict   about who the beneficiaries are in a will or trust.  Or, if there was not a will or trust a Court could need to determine who the deceased's heirs are for purposes of intestate succession.  If a will or trust sought to exclude someone and they challenge it, the enforcement or non-enforcement of that term could dictate whether or not they get a piece of the pie at all.

Sometimes the issue revolves around "how big a slice does everyone get?"  For example, a will or trust often leaves different types or percentages of property to different people or entities.  In an intestate estate where the deceased did not leave a will or trust (or perhaps those documents were found to be invalid), one's status as a surviving spouse, surviving child, surviving parent, surviving sibling, surviving grandchild, etc. will determine the size and extent of one's piece of the pie.

Other times the question involves "what is even in the pie?"  What I mean by  that is that property formally conveyed to a trust should pass through the trust, but property not conveyed to that trust will pass outside the trust (typically through the estate).  Likewise, whether or not an estate is formally opened or a trust even exists, some property can automatically pass by beneficiary designations (IRA's, life insurance, etc.) or operation of law (transfer on death accounts, joint tenants with right of   survivorship accounts, etc.) instead of passing to or through a trust, estate, etc.  

Finally, occasionally the concern focuses upon "whether anyone ate some (or all) of the pie before it got sliced  up?"  In other words, if there was a misappropriation of monies or assets the dispute may necessarily be primarily concerned with (1) attempting to investigate, locate and recover the missing property, and (2) holding whomever took it civilly or criminally responsible, if appropriate.  

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Presentation At The 2016 Arkansas Bar Association Annual Meeting

Today one of my law partners, Pat James, and I will be privileged to make a presentation at the Arkansas Bar Association Annual Meeting in Hot Springs, Arkansas, where over 1,200 lawyers and judges congregate every June for 4 days of continuing education seminars,  meetings, and socializing.   The title of our presentation is---not surprisingly given that you are reading this blog---"WEALTH WARS:   Arkansas  Estate, Trust, Probate And Inheritance Litigation."

The hour-long presentation is designed to be a broad overview, for the general practitioner, of numerous topics arising in this area of law.   For an A to Z listing of the topics to be discussed, inclusive of some written materials containing a checklist of common claims and causes of action; a checklist of common defenses; an exemplary case theme (the “fraud triangle”); a lengthy list of Arkansas statutes frequently arising in litigated estate and trust matters; and citations to a few helpful general and Arkansas-specific secondary materials,  please click on the following link:    Written Materials For June 2016 CLE Presentation 

Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Managing Someone Else's Money

 Estate, trust, power of attorney and probate disputes often develop due to disagreements over the manner in which someone managed another person's money. For example, the beneficiaries of a will might disagree with the executor's claim for fees related to administration of an estate.  Co-trustees might differ as to the best investments for maximizing the income and assets of a trust.  Two children might question the propriety of their third sibling's withdrawals of money from their mother's bank account, pursuant to a financial power of attorney that the mother apparently executed at some point in the past.

 To provide guidance in these situations, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has recently released 4 booklets entitled "Managing Someone Else's Money" which are intended for such persons as trustees, agents under powers of attorney, court-appointed guardians, and government fiduciaries.  Not only do they assist those who are honestly and legitimately attempting to assist in the management of money or property for a loved one, they also provide information on warning signs and things to look for when someone else is doing the managing of that person's finances.

 Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Arkansas Court Of Appeals Affirms Agreement To Split Joint Accounts Despite Beneficiary Designations

 There is often confusion regarding what property falls within an estate, or trust, and what property falls outside of either.  For example, commonly bank accounts, IRA’s, etc., are titled in such a way that upon one person’s death, the remaining monies are left to the other person or person(s) identified on the account paperwork such that this property passes outside the estate or trust.  It can often be a difficult task to demonstrate that this money should be divided in a different manner.

 However, the Arkansas Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s ruling that this was what was supposed to occur, in the case of Richardson v. Brown, 2012 Ark. App. 535 (September 26, 2012) stemming from Faulkner County Circuit Court.  This was actually a case that I handled on behalf of a client, and the Judge ruled in his favor.  The ruling was left wholly intact by the appellate court.

Without going into too much detail, the parties' mother passed away leaving three children as her heirs.  Certain property passed to the children pursuant to a will, but the mother had other property (a car, bank accounts, IRA, etc.) that were titled in various ways as between her and her individual children.  Our client argued that despite the titling on the various property, the three children had in fact an oral agreement, as demonstrated by the later actions and conduct of the children, to split all of the properties evenly.  He had received the “short end of the stick” and, basically, believed that his sisters had intentionally deprived him of his equal one-third share.

 In a hard fought battle, our client ultimately prevailed at trial and proved that, notwithstanding the titling on the various properties, there was an express agreement among the siblings to equally divide the various accounts.  The trial court imposed a judgment and a substantial attorneys’ fee award, both of which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

 In doing so, among other things the Court ruled that ordinarily ownership of a joint bank account with a right of survivorship is conclusive proof of the parties’ intent for the property to pass to the survivor.  However, this general rule does not prevent the survivor from making a different disposition by agreement, and in this case the trial court determined that such an agreement had in fact been made among the siblings.  This is a difficult argument to make, because courts presume that the titling on an account is strong evidence of how that property is to be distributed.  But, if the facts and evidence warrant it, this case demonstrates that a court will sometimes hold that an agreement to divide the property otherwise will prevail over the titling of an account.

 Matt House can be contacted by telephone at 501-372-6555, by e-mail at mhouse@jamesandhouse.com, by facsimile at 501-372-6333, or by regular mail at James, House & Downing, P.A., Post Office Box 3585, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203.

Removal Of An Executor (Personal Representative) From An Estate Under Arkansas Law

As previously discussed on this Blog, an executor, also known as a personal representative, is a person who is charged with the responsibility of administering an estate after another person has passed away.  They will typically do things like collect and inventory the deceased's assets, manage the property, pay the debts, and distribute property according to any will or the intestacy laws (setting forth distribution priorities for those dying without a will).

However, conflicts will sometimes arise between the executor of the estate and the beneficiaries of that estate, the latter of whom are generally supposed to receive bequests or property from the estate.  Perhaps the executor is alleged to be operating under a conflict of interest, is improperly personally benefitting from the property of the estate, or is simply not carrying out their duties.  In Arkansas, there is a specific statute that governs these conflicts and sets forth the grounds for when an executor can be removed from his or her office.  For anyone who currently is or ever anticipates administering an estate in Arkansas, or who is or ever will be the beneficiary of an estate,  it is worth getting familiar with the removal statute.

Specifically, under the Arkansas Probate Code of 1949, Ark. Code Ann. § 28-1-101 et seq., the Court appoints and issues letters testamentary to a personal representative to manage and preserve the property and rights of the decedent until distribution according to the testamentary document or appropriate intestate statute. Ark. Code Ann. § 28-48-102. It is well-established that "[t]he personal representative occupies a fiduciary position toward the heirs, and it is his duty to act toward them, as the beneficiaries of the trust administered by him, with the utmost good faith." Price v. Price, 253 Ark. 1124, 1137, 491 S.W2d 793, 801 (1973). The personal representative generally continues in that office unless removed due to one or more of the grounds set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 28-48-105.

Ark. Code Ann. §28-48-105(a) (emphasis added) provides that:

(a)(1) When the personal representative becomes mentally incompetent, disqualified, unsuitable, or incapable of discharging his or her trust, has mismanaged the estate, has failed to perform any duty imposed by law or by any lawful order of the court, or has ceased to be a resident of the state without filing the authorization of an agent to accept service as provided in § 28-48-101(b)(6), then the court may remove him or her.

(2) The court on its own motion may, or on the petition of an interested person shall, order the personal representative to appear and show cause why he or she should not be removed.

With this in mind, Ark. Code Ann. §28-48-107(a) (emphasis added) provides that "[w]hen a personal representative dies, is removed by the court, or resigns and the resignation is accepted by the court, the court may, and, if he or she was the sole or last surviving personal representative and the administration is not completed, the court shall, appoint another personal representative in his place upon the motion or petition of an interested person."

Separate and distinct from the statutory grounds for removal of a personal representative, multiple Arkansas cases also shed light on this issue. For example, in Robinson v. Winston, 64 Ark.App. 170, 175-76, 984 S.W.2d 38, 40-41 (1998), the evidence was deemed sufficient to warrant removal of the personal representative due to her attitude toward a person interested in the estate that created a reasonable doubt as to whether she would act honorably, fairly, and dispassionately in her trust, and because the tension and her continuance in the office would likely render administration of the estate difficult, inefficient, or unduly protracted. See also Matter of Guardianship of Vesa, 319 Ark. 574, 579-82, 892 S.W2d 491, 494-95 (1995) ("unsuitability" of ward’s sibling to serve as guardian of the estate, justifying removal on probate court’s own motion and appointment of neutral successor, was established by evidence of family friction among ward’s siblings which adversely affected administration of estate).

Likewise, in Guess v. Going, 62 Ark. App. 19, 23-25, 966 S.W2d 930, 932-33 (1998), testimony of the personal representative that "mother’s love" precluded her from challenging a land sale agreement that was extremely favorable to her daughter, even though the terms of the agreement made it unlikely that the heirs of the estate could ever benefit from what would have been the estate’s largest asset, established a conflict of interest making the executrix unsuitable and warranting her removal. See also Price v. Price, 258 Ark. 363, 378, 527 S.W.2d 322, 332-33 (1975) (wherein a personal representative who had persistently acted in furtherance of her own interests in a manner to deprive her step-children of any benefits from their rights of the father’s property, and who had been recalcitrant about compliance with her fiduciary responsibilities and directions of the court, was deemed unsuitable for discharge of the trust involved in acting as personal representative of the estate such that removal was appropriate).

In sum, those administering estates in the State of Arkansas must take their duties seriously so as to avoid placing themselves in a situation in which their actions and inactions could be questioned.  Similarly, beneficiaries of an estate should be vigilant in monitoring the conduct of the executor to ensure that they are properly doing their job.  In the appropriate case, Arkansas courts have not hesitated to remove executors where the facts and circumstances warrant it.

Videotaping As Possible Way To Preclude Estate, Trust & Probate Litigation

You may remember a movie from 15 or so years ago called "My Life," starring Michael Keaton and Nicole Kidman, in which a terminally ill man films a video for his unborn child to watch after the man passes away after a fight with cancer.  The father essentially wanted the child to know who the father was and what the father had learned in his own life, since he would not be around when the child was growing up. 

While the movie was not focused upon an estate or trust battle, I was still reminded of "My Life" yesterday when reading the December 7, 2009 post on the Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog, which had an interesting link to a December 3, 2009 Wall Street Journal article written by Kristen McNamara and entitled "Lights, Camera . . . Last Words."  The article discussed videos as a way of allowing the dying to say a few last words and also possibly prevent legal disputes regarding property division after death.  Here is an excerpt from the Blog and the article itself:

"Some individuals have found a way to breathe life into dry estate-planning documents: They're supplementing them with personal messages via video.

With guidance—and caveats—from attorneys and financial advisers, some elderly and terminally ill individuals, and even some young parents, are picking up video cameras or hiring professional videographers to share their life stories, express hopes for younger generations and explain why they're leaving certain assets to certain family members. * * *

[E]xperts say that while videos can head off disputes, if not carefully executed, they also can backfire. * * *

A video may make sense if you are concerned that an heir will claim you weren't competent when you signed estate-planning documents or were pressured to distribute your assets a certain way, estate-planning attorneys say. Videos in which lucid individuals review their wills with their attorneys and answer questions that demonstrate their understanding of the documents and confirm they weren't coerced into any decisions can be useful in rebuffing challenges, they say. Such videos are typically filmed during a will-signing in an attorney's office and are kept by the attorney, along with the estate-planning documents. * * *

Attorneys generally caution against homemade videos, saying they are more likely to cause problems than those produced in consultation with an attorney. A video filmed by a beneficiary, for example, could give rise to conflict-of-interest questions. And, whether filmed professionally or not, a video in which a person looks ill or uneasy could raise questions about his or her cognitive abilities."

My personal view on this is that---overall---technology is a good thing and if it can be used to help rather than hinder in the course of estate planning, then it should be considered as part of the process.  After all, there is little doubt in the criminal context that many a disputed traffic stop, questioned search and seizure, and controversial police station interrogation could be averted if such proceedings were videotaped to ward off the "he said, she said" nature of these events.  Likewise, it seems that if an individual had a video camera and (vis-a-vis an objective, detached cameraman) proceeded to film a will or trust signing ceremony, held up each page of the document to the camera, interviewed or showed the witnesses and other participants, videotaped the actual signatures and notarizations, and otherwise allowed the individual to talk at length during the proceeding, that this could conceivably preclude many a disputed proceeding involving fraud, undue influence, and the like. 

New Book And Television Series Coming Out About Estate, Trust & Probate Battles

The estate, trust, and probate disputes and lawsuits that one reads about in the newspapers and which we commonly see in our law practice can seem like a television or movie drama.  Common threads running through these battles frequently include prominent characters in the community, tales of large sums of money flying around, allegations of complex conspiracies, questions regarding how a person died, disputes about the execution of certain documents, and claims of fraud and other wrongdoing.  In fact, these are probably the same human elements and reasons why I tend to find this area of law so interesting.  Perhaps it is also the reason why a new book and television series are coming out relating to these estate, trust and probate battles. 

Specifically, two Michigan lawyers, Andrew and Danielle Mayoras (who also author the Probate Lawyer Blog) have written Trial & Heirs:  Famous Fortune Fights which is described as a book containing "juicy details on famous cases."  While giving the reader "a front row seat in the courtroom," the authors also seek to "replay the scenarios and point out what went wrong, the winners and losers, and what you can learn from it."  The book is available for purchase at the above link.   

Also, the December 2, 2009 entry on the Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof Blog reports that a Canadian-based TV production company is shooting a new documentary series entitled "The Will," which will apparently reveal "the true life stories of complex and surprising disputes that have arisen surrounding a will, estate or trust."  The link summarizes how to participate in the series or submit a case that you think they should profile, and states that "they are looking for dramatic, unusual stories with numerous twists and turns, secrets and real emotion."  Most estate, trust and probate battles that we have handled seem to meet that criteria, but apparently one condition for being profiled in the TV series is that the cases must have reached a final decision or settlement in order to be considered.

Newly-Discovered Assets In Old Estate Result In New Litigation

A recent decision from the Arkansas Court of Appeals in Ellingsen v. King, 2009 Ark. 655 (October 7, 2009) illustrates how some long-forgotten but newly-discovered property can often send family members and creditors scrambling for their piece of the pie.  This interesting case involved Mr. McAlexander, who died in 1988 a resident of Shelby County, Tennessee.  An domiciliary probate estate was opened in Tennessee, and an ancillary probate estate was opened in Arkansas.  Mr. McAlexander's creditors did not file a claim against the ancillary estate in Arkansas, and its known assets (a fractional mineral interest to 85 acres of land in Conway County, Arkansas) were transferred to the Tennessee estate, such that the Arkansas estate closed in 1990.  In 1991, a Tennessee probate court concluded that the estate was insolvent and approved a plan of distribution to the estate's three creditors (the United States of America [60%], a bank [20%], and Mr. McAlexander's widow [20%]), before the estate was closed in 1996. 

A decade went by and in 1996 it was discovered that Mr. McAlexander had actually also held an interest in the mineral rights to approximately 4800 additional acres of land in Conway County, Arkansas, which everyone in Arkansas now knows is in the heart of the booming Fayetteville Shale natural gas play.  The ancillary estate in Arkansas was reopened but none of the creditors filed a claim.  In 2007 the Arkansas trial court authorized the executor of the estate to execute an oil and gas lease that included a cash bonus in excess of $1,000,000.00. 

At that point, of course, it appears that people came out of the woodwork to claim the money.  Specifically, the executor asked the trial court to determine the rights and interests of the creditors who had filed claims agains the Tennessee estate.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the creditors, with the end result being that Mr. McAlexander's five daughters receiving nothing under the trial court's order.  On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals noted that while there was no evidence to indicate that the creditors properly presented their claims pursuant to Arkansas law, under Arkansas law when an estate is deemed insolvent it is still possible in some circumstances for such creditors to be paid a portion of their claim.  While the Tennessee court had long ago held that the estate was insolvent, that finding was made before the assets at issue were discovered such that the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment for factual findings as to the solvency of the estate in light of the newly-discovered assets.

I cannot help but think that in the coming years we will see many more stories like this, as people dust off old deeds and other documents only to discover that they possess mineral rights in North-Central Arkansas land that they never dreamed would become a profit-producing property.