{
  "id": 1881033,
  "name": "Nancy WILLIS, as Mother and Next Friend of Tina Raynee Adams, A Minor, and Melissa Sharron Adams Pruitt v. ESTATE OF William Sherman ADAMS, Deceased, and Tracy Charlene Slote",
  "name_abbreviation": "Willis v. Estate of Adams",
  "decision_date": "1990-12-03",
  "docket_number": "90-158",
  "first_page": "35",
  "last_page": "37",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "304 Ark. 35"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "799 S.W.2d 800"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "729 S.W.2d 422",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        6139264,
        1871320
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/21/0134-01",
        "/ark/292/0384-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 Ark. 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1871320
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/292/0384-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 Ark. 126",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1888343
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/299/0126-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 Ark. 518",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1869803
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/293/0518-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 28-39-307",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(b)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 286,
    "char_count": 4284,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.907,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7018354738292582e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7009373905582912
    },
    "sha256": "8f5fe3e3b52bdaea77d7a2e9675b30428233ae2974dbbb008d6558e7e03ea452",
    "simhash": "1:5659ee94ee17761b",
    "word_count": 729
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:15:14.712931+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Nancy WILLIS, as Mother and Next Friend of Tina Raynee Adams, A Minor, and Melissa Sharron Adams Pruitt v. ESTATE OF William Sherman ADAMS, Deceased, and Tracy Charlene Slote"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nThis is the second appeal in this probate case. The executor of William Sherman Adams\u2019s estate brought the first appeal from the trial court\u2019s decision finding the deceased\u2019s two grandchildren, Tina and Melissa, pretermitted heirs and upholding the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 28-39-307(b) (1987), the pretermitted heir statute. We upheld the statute\u2019s validity. Holland v. Willis, 293 Ark. 518, 739 S.W.2d 529 (1987).\nFollowing Holland, the probate court added Tracy Slote as a pretermitted heir to its earlier order. Tina and Melissa, having complied with ARCP Rule 54(b), now bring this interlocutory appeal, contending the \u201claw of the case\u201d of the Holland decision precluded the trial judge from adding Slote and giving her a distributive share of the estate. We affirm.\nArkansas follows the general rule that an argument which could have been raised in the first appeal and is not made until a subsequent appeal is barred by the law of the case. Alexander v. Chapman, 299 Ark. 126, 771 S.W.2d 744 (1989). We also have said that the law of the case doctrine prevents consideration of an argument that could have been made at the first trial. Id.; see also Widmer v. Widmer, 292 Ark. 384, 729 S.W.2d 422 (1987). Here, a hearing was held on the issue of pretermitted heirs on February 26,1987, prior to the first appeal. Therefore, Tina and Melissa argue that Tracy could have challenged at trial and on appeal the trial judge\u2019s decision naming only Tina and Melissa as pretermitted heirs. They further argue that, while Tracy had been listed as an heir and given notice of all probate proceedings, Tracy failed to appear at the February 26 hearing to show that she was a grandchild of the deceased.\nTina and Melissa filed a petition for their statutory shares as pretermitted heirs on June 10, 1986. On February 26, 1987, a hearing was held on the petition and on the issue raised by the estate regarding the constitutionality of the pretermitted heir statute. Although Tina and Melissa claim Tracy received notice of all the hearings below, we have thoroughly searched the record and nowhere find she had notice of the February 26 hearing or its purpose. At the closing of all the testimony in that hearing, the estate\u2019s attorney informed the trial judge that Tracy had also been named as a granddaughter and surviving heir, but he was uncertain as.to her legal status. He told the judge that Tracy had been served with the estate\u2019s original petition, but she had not filed a claim prior to the February 26 hearing. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge made no actual finding as to Tracy but did determine and order that Tina and Melissa each were entitled as pretermitted heirs to a one-quarter share of the estate.\nUpon our review of the record, we are unable to say Tracy knew that her status as a grandchild was in dispute, nor that she had been notified that a hearing was scheduled to determine either her rights or Tina\u2019s and Melissa\u2019s as pretermitted heirs. That being true, it is impossible to conclude that Tracy could have questioned either at trial or on appeal the trial judge\u2019s earlier order which omitted any reference to Tracy and named only Tina and Melissa as pretermitted heirs. As a consequence, we hold that the law of the case is inapplicable here.\nIn its order awarding Tracy a one-sixth distributive share in the estate, the trial court found no one had presented any proof that negated Tracy\u2019s position and relationship to the decedent or that showed she had abandoned her claim as an heir. Under these circumstances, we agree with the trial court that to deny her claim would be patently unjust. Therefore, we affirm.\nAt the hearing following Holland, Tracy was shown to be the adopted daughter of. Bill Adams, the deceased\u2019s son. Thus, Tracy was shown to be one of the deceased\u2019s grandchildren, and no question is raised in this appeal concerning that relationship.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jack Skinner, for appellant.",
      "Walters Law Firm, P.A., by: James B. Pierce, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Nancy WILLIS, as Mother and Next Friend of Tina Raynee Adams, A Minor, and Melissa Sharron Adams Pruitt v. ESTATE OF William Sherman ADAMS, Deceased, and Tracy Charlene Slote\n90-158\n799 S.W.2d 800\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 3, 1990\nJack Skinner, for appellant.\nWalters Law Firm, P.A., by: James B. Pierce, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0035-01",
  "first_page_order": 63,
  "last_page_order": 65
}