{
  "id": 1880015,
  "name": "Nell Tarwater RICKNER v. ESTATE OF Charles A. RICKNER, Deceased",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rickner v. Estate of Rickner",
  "decision_date": "1984-06-18",
  "docket_number": "84-51",
  "first_page": "42",
  "last_page": "43",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "283 Ark. 42"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "670 S.W.2d 450"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "231 Ark. 197",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1697045
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/231/0197-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 246,
    "char_count": 2853,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.864,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.134288990235535e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5074201237214988
    },
    "sha256": "e81c4911144aff0b9388e6064ca36e24dc2d6a059f7e95659c7a45654df09d17",
    "simhash": "1:365c007e881ceb14",
    "word_count": 479
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:00:41.772495+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Nell Tarwater RICKNER v. ESTATE OF Charles A. RICKNER, Deceased"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nSection 23'of the Probate Code states what has long been the law in Arkansas: \u201cIf after making a will the testator is divorced or the marriage of the testator is annulled, all provisions in the will in favor of the testator\u2019s spouse are thereby revoked.\u201d Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 60-407 (Supp. 1983). The question in this case, as argued by the appellant, is whether the statute is applicable when the testator\u2019s marriage was void for bigamy. The probate judge held that, on the facts, the divorced wife of the testator is estopped to take advantage of the statute. We agree with that decision.\nThe testator, Charles A. Rickner, and the appellant, Nell Tarwater Rickner, were married in Mississippi in 1950, although Rickner was riot divorced from his first wife until 1952. In 1978 Rickner executed his will, naming his wife, the appellant, as his residuary beneficiary, with the property to be held in trust for the testator\u2019s grandchildren if his wife predeceased him. In 1979 Rickner obtained a divorce from the appellant. The decree approved a property settlement agreement by which Mrs. Rickner received about $80,000 in cash or promissory notes, seven shares of stock, a car, and assorted household goods and furniture. Rickner died in 1980 without having revoked his will.\nOn the foregoing facts the case was submitted to the probate judge on briefs in September 1981. After an unexplained delay of two years the court entered a judgment holding that the decree of divorce was not void on its face and that the appellant, having received her share of the marital property, is estopped to claim that there was no valid marriage. The appeal comes to us under Rule 29 (1) (c).\nIt is conceded that a bigamous marriage is void. We need not decide, however, whether our implied revocation statute would apply to Rickner\u2019s will if there were no basis for the trial court\u2019s finding of an estoppel. There is a solid basis for that finding. The appellant recognized the validity of her marriage in obtaining her share of the marital property in the divorce proceeding. Without offering to return that property, she now seeks to obtain the bulk of her former husband\u2019s remaining property on the ground that the marriage was void. The contradiction is undeniable. A party cannot invoke a court\u2019s jurisdiction to obtain a benefit and then complain, in order to obtain an additional benefit, that the court had no jurisdiction. See Davis v. Adams, 231 Ark. 197, 328 S.W.2d 851 (1959). Nothingwould be gained by our discussing the issue in further detail.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Guy H. \u201cMutt\u201d Jones, Sr., Phil Stratton, and Casey Jones, by: Phil Stratton, for appellant.",
      "Stephen E. James, P.A., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Nell Tarwater RICKNER v. ESTATE OF Charles A. RICKNER, Deceased\n84-51\n670 S.W.2d 450\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 18, 1984\nGuy H. \u201cMutt\u201d Jones, Sr., Phil Stratton, and Casey Jones, by: Phil Stratton, for appellant.\nStephen E. James, P.A., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0042-01",
  "first_page_order": 64,
  "last_page_order": 65
}