{
  "id": 8723118,
  "name": "The ESTATE of Alice E. CISCO, Deceased, Kent COXSEY, Executor v. Gerald Lee CISCO, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Estate of Cisco v. Cisco",
  "decision_date": "1986-04-21",
  "docket_number": "85-324",
  "first_page": "552",
  "last_page": "556",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "288 Ark. 552"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "707 S.W.2d 769"
    }
  ],
  "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": "288 Ark. 96",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8717656
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/288/0096-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 S.W.2d 996",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1929,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 Ark. 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723903
      ],
      "year": 1929,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/179/0543-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 A.L.R. 723",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "year": 1944,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 352,
    "char_count": 6970,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.902,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.121491057675486e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42753168234904815
    },
    "sha256": "e0c58fe38aa78c573b4de671199bed826285fe2570f3fffe60b0dc356309721a",
    "simhash": "1:01f6c1402f1dd5af",
    "word_count": 1211
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:45:27.788923+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Purtle, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "The ESTATE of Alice E. CISCO, Deceased, Kent COXSEY, Executor v. Gerald Lee CISCO, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThis is a will construction case involving pretermitted, or omitted, grandchildren of deceased children. Alice E. Cisco died testate, leaving her estate to seven of her children and one grandchild. The will was executed on November 2,1978. Mrs. Cisco did not mention two children who were deceased at that time: Tommy Donald Cisco and Ethmer Edwin Cisco. On July 7, 1981, a codicil was executed to update her will. In it Mrs. Cisco acknowledged that since she executed her will two of her children had passed away, Bob Cisco and Dale Cisco. Still no mention was made of Tommy Donald Cisco or Ethmer Edwin Cisco. The estate was to be divided between her remaining five children and one grandchild. The children of Tommy and Ethmer Cisco petitioned to take against the will, claiming to be pretermitted heirs. The trial court found in their favor and the estate appeals. We affirm the trial court\u2019s decision.\nThe will in relevant portions reads:\nThe rest and residue of my estate, whether real or personal and wherever situate, I hereby devise and bequeath in the following manner:\nOne Eighth (1/8) of my estate, I hereby devise and bequeath unto my son, Hugh Cisco.\nOne Eighth (1/8) of my estate, I hereby devise and bequeath unto my son, R. C. Cisco.\nOne Eighth (1/8) of my estate, I hereby devise and bequeath unto my daughter, June Miller.\nOne Eighth (1/8) of my estate, I hereby devise and bequeath unto my son, Bob Cisco.\nOne Eighth (1/8) of my estate, I hereby devise and bequeath unto my son, Jack Cisco.\nOne Eighth (1/8) of my estate, I hereby devise and bequeath unto my daughter, Audrey Cash.\nOne Eighth (1/8) of my estate, I hereby devise and bequeath unto my son, Dale Cisco.\nOne Sixteenth (1 /16) of my estate, I hereby devise and bequeath unto my son, Ernest Cisco.\nOne Sixteenth (1 /16) of my estate, I hereby devise and bequeath unto my grandson, Ricky Cisco.\nThe codicil in pertinent part reads:\nSince the execution of the above referred to Will, two (2) of my sons have died, namely: Bob Cisco and Dale Cisco.\nAfter payment of Paragraph #1 of said Will, I hereby devise and bequeath the rest and residue of my estate in the following manner:\nOne-sixth (1/6) of my estate, I hereby devise and bequeath unto my son, Hugh Cisco.\nOne-sixth (1/6) of my estate, I hereby devise and bequeath unto my son, R. C. Cisco.\nOne-sixth (1/6) of my estate, I hereby devise and bequeath unto my daughter, June Miller.\nOne-sixth (1/6) of my estate, I hereby devise and bequeath unto my daughter, Audrey Cash.\nOne-twelfth (1/12) of my estate, I hereby devise and bequeath unto my son, Ernest Cisco.\nOne-twelfth (1/12) of my estate, I hereby devise and bequeath unto my grandson, Ricky Cisco.\nIf any of my children should die before I do, I direct that their share revert back into my estate, and be divided to the remaining legatees equivalent to the distribution above set forth.\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 60-507(b) (Repl. 1971) defines a pretermitted heir:\nIf at the time of the execution of a will there be a living child of the testator, or living child or issue of a deceased child of the testator, whom the testator shall omit to mention or provide for, either specifically or as a member of a class, the testator shall be deemed to have died intestate with respect to such child or issue, and such child or issue shall be entitled to recover from the devisees in proportion to the amounts of their respective shares, that portion of the estate which he or they would have inherited had there been no will.\nThe estate claims the appellees\u2019 fathers are part of the class of \u201cmy children\u201d in the last sentence of the codicil and, therefore, were not omitted from the will. As a general rule, the testator\u2019s use of a word which describes a class of persons is considered to be sufficient identification of the claimant to preclude the application of the pretermitted heir statute. Annot., 152 A.L.R. 723 (1944); Yeates v. Yeates, 179 Ark. 543, 16 S.W.2d 996 (1929).\nIn construing this will, we must determine the intention of the testatrix and give that intention effect. Deal v. Huddleston, 288 Ark. 96, 702 S.W.2d 404 (1986); Yeates v. Yeates, supra. In Armstrong v. Butler, 262 Ark. 31, 553 S.W.2d 453 (1977), we said:\nThe intention of a testator is to be gathered from the four corners of the instrument itself, considering the language used and giving meaning to all its provisions, if possible to do so. The intention of the testator as expressed in the language of his will prevails if consistent with the rules of law.\nThe will listed only the children living at the time the will was executed and one grandchild. No class was mentioned, only names. Tommy Donald Cisco and Ethmer Edwin Cisco had already died. The first paragraph of the codicil states that since the execution of her will, two children had died, Bob Cisco and Dale Cisco. The second paragraph bequeathed her estate to her living children and the one grandchild. The last paragraph then stated that if any of her children predeceased her, their shares would revert to the estate to be distributed to the other legatees.\nThe trial court found:\nThe wording of the sentence in the codicil and stated above does not name the petitioners or Tommy Donald Cisco or Ethmer Edwin Cisco as a class in the term \u2018my children\u2019. This term referred only to the specifically named children remaining from the text of the will which were not specifically named as excluded in the codicil, i.e. Bob Cisco and Dale Cisco. Although \u2018any children\u2019 would be syno-nomous with \u2018all children\u2019, the key words of limitation are \u2018if, \u2018should\u2019, and \u2018revert\u2019. The testatrix\u2019s intention being children, as named specifically in the codicil, whose death may occur subsequent to the date of the codicil and prior to the date of the testatrix\u2019s death. The children of testatrix who died prior to the date of the making of the testatrix\u2019s Last Will and Testament, i.e. Tommy Donald Cisco and Ethmer Edwin Cisco, were not mentioned specifically or as a member of a class; therefore, the petitioners under the provisions of Ark. Stat. Ann. 60-507(b) are entitled to recover a representative share of the deceased issue of the testatrix as a pretermitted child.\nWe agree with the trial court that the phrase \u201cmy children\u201d was referring to only the children living at the time the codicil was executed. Tommy and Ethmer Cisco were not part of that class because they passed away prior to the execution of the will. Since neither they nor the appellees were specifically mentioned in the will or codicil, the appellees are pretermitted heirs and entitled to share in the estate.\nAffirmed.\nPurtle, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Coxsey & Coxsey, by. J. Kent Coxsey, for appellant.",
      "Epley, Epley & Castleberry, Ltd., by: Lewis E. Epley, Jr., for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The ESTATE of Alice E. CISCO, Deceased, Kent COXSEY, Executor v. Gerald Lee CISCO, et al.\n85-324\n707 S.W.2d 769\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 21, 1986\nCoxsey & Coxsey, by. J. Kent Coxsey, for appellant.\nEpley, Epley & Castleberry, Ltd., by: Lewis E. Epley, Jr., for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0552-01",
  "first_page_order": 590,
  "last_page_order": 594
}