Case Title: Wells v. Estate of Wells

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-06-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
Jack WELLS and Reba Wells v. The ESTATE of
Reba A. WELLS

95-1299                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered June 3, 1996


1.   Wills -- review of probate cases -- burden of proof. --
     Probate cases are reviewed de novo on appeal, and the
     appellate court will not reverse unless the findings of the
     probate judge are clearly erroneous; due deference will be
     given to the superior position of the probate judge to
     determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to
     be accorded their testimony; in the typical will contest, the
     party contesting the validity of the will has the burden of
     proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the testator
     lacked mental capacity at the time the will was executed or
     that the testator acted under undue influence.

2.   Wills -- testimony clearly put possibility of duress and undue
     influence into issue -- probate judge not clearly erroneous in
     refusing to probate will. -- Although there was considerable
     other testimony introduced below, the testimony reviewed on
     appeal showed that the question whether the decedent was under
     duress and undue influence when she signed the May 6, 1994
     instrument the appellant's family had prepared was very much
     in issue; based upon the record before the court, it could not
     be said that the probate judge was clearly erroneous in
     finding duress and undue influence and refusing to probate the
     May 6 instrument as the decedent's last will.

3.   Wills -- revocation of -- will not revoked by trust
     instrument. -- Appellant's argument that the probate judge
     erred in probating the July 8 will because it had been revoked
     by an inter vivos trust executed on February 24, 1994, was
     meritless where appellant had no standing to raise the issue
     because nothing in the record purported to give him any
     interest in the trust or the will, and the revocation of wills
     is governed by Ark. Code Ann.  28-25-109 (1987), which has
     been uniformly construed to mean that the only methods of
     revoking a will are those enumerated in the statute, none of
     which were present here; section 28-25-109 does not provide
     that a prior will can be revoked by a trust instrument, nor
     was there any evidence that the July 8, 1993 will was revoked
     by any method authorized under  28-25-109.


     Appeal from Sebastian Probate Court; Warren O. Kimbrough,
Probate Judge; affirmed.
     Michael J. Medlock, for appellants.
     Paul R. Post, for appellee.

     Tom Glaze, Justice.
*ADVREP*SC4*






JACK WELLS AND REBA WELLS,
                    APPELLANTS,

V.

THE ESTATE OF REBA A. WELLS,
                    APPELLEE.



95-1299

Opinion Delivered:  6-3-96

APPEAL FROM THE PROBATE COURT
OF SEBASTIAN COUNTY, ARKANSAS,
NO. P94-132(I); HONORABLE
WARREN O. KIMBROUGH, PROBATE
JUDGE 

AFFIRMED





                  TOM GLAZE, Associate Justice

     This litigation arose after Reba A. Wells died on May 13,
1994.  Five days later, Ms. Wells's stepson, Jack Wells, filed a
petition in probate court, submitting an untitled instrument dated
May 6, 1994, as Ms. Wells's last will, and requesting that he be
appointed executor.  On May 19, 1994, Michie Daniels, Ms. Wells's
niece, petitioned the probate court, offering an instrument dated
July 8, 1993, entitled the Last Will and Testament of Reba A.
Wells.  After a hearing, the trial judge declined to probate the
instrument proffered by Jack Wells, holding the instrument was not
a will, nor properly executed as such.  The judge concluded (1) the
instrument failed to reflect it was a will, (2) it was not executed
as a will under Ark. Code Ann.  28-25-103 (1987), and (3) the
decedent, Ms. Wells, never declared before a witness that the
instrument was a will.  Furthermore, the judge held the proof of
will accompanying the instrument submitted by Jack Wells was not
supported by the evidence.  Finally, he found that, when she
executed the May 6, 1994 instrument and other related documents,
Reba A. Wells was under duress and undue influence.  The probate
judge admitted to probate the Reba A. Wells will dated July 8,
1993, finding it properly executed and valid.
     In this appeal, Jack Wells challenges all of the probate
judge's findings in holding the May 6, 1994 instrument to be
invalid.  He argues that, while Reba A. Wells may not have declared
to the witnesses that the May 6, 1994 instrument was her will, such
a declaration was not required.  See Faith, 286 Ark. 403,