{
  "id": 1756167,
  "name": "Hazel SPENCE v. Don SPENCE et al",
  "name_abbreviation": "Spence v. Spence",
  "decision_date": "1981-01-19",
  "docket_number": "80-242",
  "first_page": "697",
  "last_page": "698",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "271 Ark. 697"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "610 S.W.2d 264"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "262 Ark. 31",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1675886
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/262/0031-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "217 Ark. 908",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725222
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/217/0908-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 Ark. 10",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1650302
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/223/0010-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 S.W. 538",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1907,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Ark. 37",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1524472
      ],
      "year": 1907,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/84/0037-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 Ark. 124",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1738051
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/237/0124-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 224,
    "char_count": 2432,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.727,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3455624246819023
    },
    "sha256": "13a804038ac69d407a9b93542f65377e1baeab6984d0fe760b4b69f518f46616",
    "simhash": "1:cc660da32c45de32",
    "word_count": 413
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:30.070289+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hazel SPENCE v. Don SPENCE et al"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice.\nThis case involves the construction of a will in which certain land was devised \u201cto my son-in-law Hayward Spence and my daughter Donnie Spence and her bodily heirs.\u201d The appellees are the sole bodily heirs of Donnie Spence by her husband, Hayward Spence.\nFollowing the probate of this will and Donnie Spence\u2019s death, Hayward married Hazel Spence and quitclaimed to her his interest in the land. Appellees filed a quiet title action in Lonoke County Chancery Court against Hazel Spence, appellant to cancel this quitclaim deed.\nThe primary question presented is what estates were created by the testator\u2019s language. First, an estate by the entirety was created by the devise to the parties who were, in fact, husband and wife. Curtis v. Patrick, 237 Ark. 124, 371 S.W. 2d 622 (1963). This arises from the common law unity of husband and wife, and it applies to an estate in fee as well as for life. Roach v. Richardson, 84 Ark. 37, 104 S.W. 538 (1907); Harmon v. Thompson, 223 Ark. 10, 263 S.W. 2d 903 (1954). Second, a fee tail estate is created by a devise to Donnie and Hayward Spence which singles out \u201cher bodily heirs.\u201d Horsley v. Hilburn, 44 Ark.458 (1884); Weatherly v. Purcell, 217 Ark. 908, 234 S.W. 2d 32 (1950). Third, under such circumstances, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 50-405 (Repl. 1971) establishes a life estate in the person seized of the fee tail with a remainder in fee to whom the estate tail would first pass at common law. Therefore, Hayward and Donnie Spence took an estate by the entirety for life with the remainder vesting in the heirs of Donnie Spence in fee simple absolute.\nWe need not concern ourselves with appellant\u2019s contention that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence oral declarations of the testator made before and after the execution of the will. The chancellor clearly ignored such testimony in finding the testator\u2019s intent, as reflected in the judgment which states that such intent was found \u201cfrom the will itself.\u201d This complies with our well-established rule that the testator\u2019s intent should be derived from the \u201cfour corners of the will,\u201d when possible. Armstrong v. Butler, 262 Ark. 31, 553 S.W. 2d 453 (1977).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mattingly & Alexander, P.A., by: Lesly W. Mattingly, for appellant.",
      "Charles A. Walls, Jr., for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hazel SPENCE v. Don SPENCE et al\n80-242\n610 S.W. 2d 264\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 19, 1981\nMattingly & Alexander, P.A., by: Lesly W. Mattingly, for appellant.\nCharles A. Walls, Jr., for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0697-01",
  "first_page_order": 743,
  "last_page_order": 744
}