{ "id": 243397, "name": "Marilyn SMITH and Derrel Smith v. Phillip SMITH, Administrator of the Estate of Mary K. Smith", "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Smith", "decision_date": "1999-09-16", "docket_number": "98-1306", "first_page": "526", "last_page": "530", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "338 Ark. 526" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "998 S.W.2d 745" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "62 Ark. App. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6136246 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/62/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ark. App. 206", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6140203 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/36/0206-01" ] }, { "cite": "333 Ark. 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 703766 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "395" }, { "page": "222" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/333/0394-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Ark. 381", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8728323 ], "year": 1854, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/15/0381-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 S.W. 166", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1913, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 Ark. 117", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1337058 ], "year": 1913, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/110/0117-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S.W. 1140", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1914, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 Ark. 353", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1540395 ], "year": 1914, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/111/0353-01" ] }, { "cite": "232 S.W. 19", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 Ark. 173", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8718659 ], "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/149/0173-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 S.W.2d 508", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "year": 1932, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 Ark. 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1435378 ], "year": 1932, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/185/0020-01" ] }, { "cite": "204 Ark. 756", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1444274 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1942, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "765" }, { "page": "61" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/204/0756-01" ] }, { "cite": "255 Ark. 1049", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726200 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/255/1049-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 Ark. 569", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1619171 ], "weight": 7, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/259/0569-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 28-39-101", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(l)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 427, "char_count": 7505, "ocr_confidence": 0.749, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08, "percentile": 0.4098520801791919 }, "sha256": "63a4db609daeeba626499b078553f20d737200227cb0e1d4a82f0d69ae23b203", "simhash": "1:116eec3efc9f465b", "word_count": 1253 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:43:54.470477+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Glaze and Imber., JJ., concur on the basis that the case should be dismissed on the ground that Appellants have no standing." ], "parties": [ "Marilyn SMITH and Derrel Smith v. Phillip SMITH, Administrator of the Estate of Mary K. Smith" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Donald L. Corbin, Justice.\nThis case involves the probate court\u2019s jurisdiction to determine ownership of funds held in a joint bank account as between the administrator of the decedent\u2019s estate and the widow and son of one of the decedent\u2019s heirs. The appeal was certified to us from the Arkansas Court of Appeals as presenting issues requiring further development and clarification of probate law. Our jurisdiction is thus pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(b)(5). We conclude that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter, and we reverse.\nMary K. Smith died intestate on July 23, 1995, after a battle with cancer. She was survived by her husband, Clarence G. Smith, and her three children, Appellee Phillip Smith, Carol Wilkerson, and Cline Smith. Phillip was appointed administrator of his mother\u2019s estate by the Franklin County Probate Court. Phillip filed an inventory of his mother\u2019s estate on November 15, 1995. Included among the listed assets was a joint checking account, having a right of survivorship, that contained approximately $43,000. The joint account was opened in 1983 in the names of Mary K. Smith or Phillip K. Smith. The account\u2019s owners remained the same until 1995, around the time that Mary became ill. From February 1995 to the time of Mary\u2019s death, ownership of the account changed three times. At the time of Mary\u2019s death, the listed owners were Mary K. Smith or Cline G. Smith.\nCline died on January 29, 1996, approximately six months after Mary\u2019s death; he, too had suffered from cancer. Cline was survived by his wife and son, Appellants Marilyn Smith and Derrel Smith. After Cline\u2019s death, Appellants appeared in the probate proceedings and objected to the inclusion of the joint bank account in Mary\u2019s estate. They contended that because the account provided for a right of survivorship, the money belonged to Cline, and, correspondingly, to them as Cline\u2019s heir and widow. The probate court ruled that the funds were the property of Mary\u2019s estate. In a letter order, the probate judge explained his ruling: \u201cEssentially, it was my belief, and still is my belief, that Mr. Cline Smith was holding this account in trust for the other heirs until such time as Mrs. Mary Smith had no further use of it.\u201d This appeal followed.\nFor reversal, Marilyn and Derrel argue that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to determine ownership of the funds in the joint bank account because they are strangers or third parties to Mary\u2019s estate. They argue further that the probate court lacked jurisdiction to fashion the equitable remedy of a constructive trust. Additionally, they assert that the probate court erred in ordering that Mary\u2019s surviving husband be paid a $2,000 statutory allowance, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 28-39-101(a)(l) (1987), from the bank account in question. We agree that the probate court acted without jurisdiction in this matter.\nThe probate court is a court of special and limited jurisdiction; it has only such jurisdiction and powers as are expressly conferred by statute or the constitution, or necessarily incident thereto. Hilburn v. First State Bank, 259 Ark. 569, 535 S.W.2d 810 (1976). This court has long recognized that the probate court lacks jurisdiction to determine contests over property rights and titles between the personal representative and third parties or strangers to the estate. Id. (citing Snow v. Martensen, 255 Ark. 1049, 505 S.W.2d 20 (1974); Ellsworth v. Cornes, 204 Ark. 756, 165 S.W.2d 57 (1942); Huff v. Hot Springs Sav., Trust & Guar. Co., 185 Ark. 20, 45 S.W.2d 508 (1932); Gordon v. Clark, 149 Ark. 173, 232 S.W. 19 (1921); Shane v. Dickson, 111 Ark. 353, 163 S.W. 1140 (1914); Fancher v. Kenner, 110 Ark. 117, 161 S.W. 166 (1913); Moss v. Sandefur, 15 Ark. 381 (1854)). In other words, \u201c[t]he probate court lacks jurisdiction to try title to property claimed by a \u2018stranger\u2019 to the estate, i.e., one who has no claim as a beneficiary of the estate or the personal representative.\u201d Jolly v. Estate of Jolly, 333 Ark. 394, 395, 970 S.W.2d 221, 222 (1998). Furthermore, it matters not whether the disputed property is in the possession of the administrator or the third-party stranger, as the probate court lacks jurisdiction in either case. Ellsworth, 204 Ark. 756, 165 S.W.2d 57; Bratcher v. Bratcher, 36 Ark. App. 206, 821 S.W.2d 481 (1991).\nThis court has defined a \u201cstranger\u201d to the estate as one who is not an heir, distributee or devisee of the decedent, or a beneficiary of or claimant against the decedent\u2019s estate. Hilburn, 259 Ark. 569, 535 S.W.2d 810. There are numerous cases from this court and the court of appeals addressing the issue of who is a stranger to an estate. For example, in Ellsworth, 204 Ark. 756, 765, 165 S.W.2d 57, 61, this court held that the decedent\u2019s stepdaughter was not an heir, distributee, or beneficiary of the estate and was, therefore, \u201ca stranger to the blood and to the estate.\u201d In Hilburn, 259 Ark. 569, 535 S.W.2d 810, this court ruled that the decedent\u2019s mother was a stranger to the estate. In Jolly, 333 Ark. 394, 970 S.W.2d 221, this court determined that the decedent\u2019s husband was a stranger to the proceedings in probate court because he had no claim in his wife\u2019s estate and was not the executor of the estate. Likewise, in Bratcher, 36 Ark. App. 206, 821 S.W.2d 481, the court of appeals held that the decedent\u2019s spouse, who was not provided for in the decedent\u2019s will, was a stranger to the estate because her claim was based entirely on an antenuptial agreement. In Guess v. Going, 62 Ark. App. 19, 966 S.W.2d 930 (1998), the court of appeals held that the decedent\u2019s granddaughter and husband were strangers to the estate, as they were not heirs, distributees or devisees, beneficiaries of or claimants against the estate.\nApplying the foregoing holdings to the case at hand, it is clear that Marilyn Smith and Derrel Smith are strangers to the estate of Mary K. Smith, as they are not her heirs, distributees, devisees, or beneficiaries of or claimants against her estate. We are not persuaded by Phillip\u2019s argument that Marilyn and Derrel were acting as the representatives of Cline\u2019s interest in Mary\u2019s estate. There is simply no evidence to indicate that the probate court appointed them as Cline\u2019s representatives or substituted them as parties to the proceedings. Rather, it appears that Marilyn and Derrel were acting in their own individual capacities, as widow and surviving heir of Cline. Accordingly, they were strangers to Mary\u2019s estate. The title dispute was thus one between the administrator and strangers to the estate, and the probate court was, therefore, without jurisdiction to determine the ownership of the funds in the joint bank account. Similarly, the probate court was without authority to order payment from that account of the $2,000 statutory allowance to Mary\u2019s husband. Because the probate court lacked jurisdiction, so does this court. Jolly, 333 Ark. 394, 970 S.W.2d 221. We thus reverse and dismiss the probate court\u2019s ruling.\nGlaze and Imber., JJ., concur on the basis that the case should be dismissed on the ground that Appellants have no standing.\nAccording to Marilyn Smith\u2019s testimony, no probate estate has been commenced for Cline Smith.", "type": "majority", "author": "Donald L. Corbin, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Keith & Miller, P.A., by: Sean T. Keith, for appellants.", "James Dunham, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Marilyn SMITH and Derrel Smith v. Phillip SMITH, Administrator of the Estate of Mary K. Smith\n98-1306\n998 S.W.2d 745\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 16, 1999\nKeith & Miller, P.A., by: Sean T. Keith, for appellants.\nJames Dunham, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0526-01", "first_page_order": 556, "last_page_order": 560 }