Title: Betts v. Betts

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Jackie BETTS v. W.T. BETTS, Edward Betts,
Billy C. Betts, Imogene Kellogg, and Louise
Simmons

96-529                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered November 11, 1996


1.   Appeal & error -- argument raised for first time on appeal --
     argument not reached. --  The supreme court did not reach an
     argument where the abstract did not reflect that the argument,
     or any similar argument, was made in the trial court; a
     nonjurisdictional argument cannot be raised for the first time
     on appeal. 

2.   Trusts -- constructive and implied trusts discussed -- when
     constructive trust arises. -- A constructive trust is a
     remedial rather than a substantive institution; in the case of
     constructive trusts, an obligation is imposed in order to
     prevent unjust enrichment; such trusts arise whenever it
     appears from the accompanying facts and circumstances that the
     beneficial interest should not go with the legal title; the
     term "implied trust" encompasses both constructive trusts and
     various types of resulting trusts; a constructive trust arises
     in favor of persons entitled to a beneficial interest against
     one who secured legal title either by an intentional false
     oral promise to hold the title for a specified purpose or by
     violation of a confidential or fiduciary duty, or who is
     guilty of any other unconscionable conduct that amounts to a
     constructive fraud.

3.   Trusts -- constructive trust -- when imposed. -- A
     constructive trust is imposed where a person holding title to
     property is subject to an equitable duty to convey it to
     another on the ground that he would be unjustly enriched if he
     were permitted to retain it; the duty to convey the property
     may arise because it was acquired through fraud, duress, undue
     influence or mistake, breach of a fiduciary duty, or wrongful
     disposition of another's property; the basis of the
     constructive trust is the unjust enrichment that would result
     if the person having the property were permitted to retain it;
     ordinarily, a constructive trust arises without regard to the
     intention of the person who transferred the property.  

4.   Trusts -- constructive trusts -- burden of proof and standard
     of review. -- To impose a constructive trust, there must be
     full, clear, and convincing evidence leaving no doubt with
     respect to the necessary facts, and the burden is especially
     great when a title to real estate is sought to be overturned
     by parol evidence; the test on review is not whether the court
     is convinced that there is clear and convincing evidence to
     support the chancellor's finding but whether it can say the
     chancellor's finding that the disputed fact was proved by
     clear and convincing evidence is clearly erroneous; the
     supreme court defers to the superior position of the
     chancellor to evaluate the evidence; a finding is clearly
     erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the
     reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the
     definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
     committed. 

5.   Appeal & error -- trial court reversed only if clearly
     erroneous -- when finding is clearly erroneous. -- The fact
     that there was testimony contrary to the trial court's
     finding, without more, was not sufficient for reversal of the
     finding; the test is whether the trial court's finding was
     clearly erroneous; a finding is clearly erroneous when,
     although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court
     on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm
     conviction that a mistake has been committed.

6.   Trusts -- conflicting evidence was presented -- trial court's
     finding affirmed. -- Where the chancellor's finding that the
     decedent intended 160 acres to be shared by the six children
     who were loyal to him and that appellant breached a duty or
     broke a promise to do so was supported by testimony and
     evidence, yet there was other evidence to the contrary, there
     was a conflict in the evidence; the chancellor saw and heard
     the witnesses, saw how they responded to both direct and
     cross-examination, and was in the superior position to
     evaluate their credibility; the supreme court was not left
     with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake had been
     committed; the chancellor's decision was affirmed.


     Appeal from Montgomery Chancery Court; Gayle Ford, Chancellor;
affirmed.
     J. E. Sanders, for appellant.
     D. Scott Hickam, for appellees.

     Robert H. Dudley, Justice.   
     R.C. Betts and Elsie Betts, who were in their eighties, had
twelve children and owned 160 acres in Montgomery County.  Six of
their children thought their father was uncaring about their mother
and, at times, was even menacing toward her.  These six children
thought that their father's mental stability had deteriorated with
advanced age, and, in August 1989, one of the six, Cecil Betts,
filed a petition seeking the involuntary commitment of R.C.  Jackie
Betts, one of the six who took the father's side, drove R.C. to the
law offices of Bill Mitchell, and, there, R.C. employed Mitchell to
contest the commitment petition.  Mitchell successfully represented
R.C., and the petition was dismissed.  On the same day the petition
was dismissed, August 8, 1989, Elsie Betts died.  This left R.C. as
the sole owner of the 160 acres.  On August 10, 1989, the following
letter to the editor appeared in the Glenwood Herald News:
     Editor:  We would like for all the people who think
     Robert Betts is such a fine person, to call him up and
     congratulate him.  He has refused his wife of 63 years,
     Elsie Betts, the right to die in peace by withdrawing all
     the money out of the bank and refusing to pay her doctor
     and hospital bills.  Signed, Her children.
     Shortly after the letter appeared in the local paper, on
September 11, 1989, R.C. returned to Bill Mitchell's law office and
had a warranty deed prepared that conveyed the 160 acres to himself
and one of his sons, Jackie Betts, as joint tenants with the right
of survivorship.  R.C. Betts died on May 10, 1990.  Mitchell, the
lawyer who drafted the deed, died on the same day.  
     Five of Jackie Betts's brothers and sisters filed this action
against Jackie:  the five plaintiffs and one defendant, Jackie, are
the six who took the father's side in the family dispute.  The
plaintiffs alleged that the purpose of the deed to Jackie was to
avoid probate and that Jackie was supposed to convey title to
himself and the five brothers and sisters after R.C.'s death.  The
five brothers and sisters alleged that Jackie refused to convey
title and asked that a constructive trust be imposed on the 160
acres.  The chancellor imposed a constructive trust.  Jackie
appeals the ruling.  We affirm. 
     In one of Jackie's points for reversal, he argues, "The
establishment of a constructive trust as to one of two joint
tenants eliminates the unities of title, interest, and possession
in that the establishment of the trust or the constructive trust
from the date of delivery of the deed prohibits the constructive
trustee from enjoying the use and benefit of the estate so granted
and thereby abolishes by its very nature the benefits of the estate
to be acquired."  We do not reach the argument.  The abstract does
not reflect that the argument, or any similar argument, was made in
the trial court.  A nonjurisdictional argument cannot be raised for
the first time on appeal.  Prudential Ins. Co. v. Frazier, 323 Ark.
311, 914 S.W.2d 296 (1996); Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v.
Estate of Hogan, 314 Ark. 19,