Case Title: Nichols v. Wray

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-07-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
Dr. Patsy NICHOLS and Mary Alice Bell v.
Shirley Bell WRAY

95-1093                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered July 15, 1996


1.   Appeal & error -- burden of obtaining ruling on appellants --
     no error found. -- Where the trial court's order did not
     address the request that the certificates of deposit be
     reformed, the burden of obtaining a ruling upon that requested
     remedy was upon the appellants; as the chancellor did not
     address it, and no objection was made to his failure to
     address it, the supreme court could not say that he erred in
     not reforming the instruments.  

2.   Contracts -- reformation of -- one not party to contract may
     not obtain reformation. -- One who is not a party to a
     contract may not obtain reformation.

3.   Banks & banking -- joint tenants have survivorship rights --
     unambiguous statutes are given their clear meaning. -- The
     language of Ark. Code Ann.  23-32-1005(2)(A) and (C) is
     clear; the opening of an account in the name of two or more
     persons designated as joint tenants or as joint tenants with
     right of survivorship "shall be conclusive evidence in any
     action or proceeding to which...the surviving party is a party
     of the intention of all of the parties to the account...to
     vest title to the account...in such survivor"; the first rule
     to be applied in statutory construction is to give the words
     in the statute their usual and ordinary meaning; if there is
     no ambiguity the supreme court gives a statute effect just as
     it reads.

4.   Banks & banking -- intent of decedent clear from the face of
     the certificates -- court's refusal to impose constructive
     trust not error. -- The chancellor's decision with respect to
     the certificates of deposit was not in error where he found
     "no evidence of fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation or
     any other abuse of the familial trust" and no evidence that
     the intent of the decedent as "conclusively" determined by the
     nature of the certificates of deposit was induced by any
     impropriety on the part of the appellee; intent may indeed not
     matter when the issue is whether there has been unjust
     enrichment and a constructive trust is sought, but if there is
     no basis for establishment of that restitutionary remedy,
     other than intent, then the statute controls.

5.   Appeal & error -- Hall case not overruled -- meaning of
     statute clear. -- The appellate court declined to overrule 
     Hall v. Superior Fed. Bank, 303 Ark. 125,