Title: Wilson v. Wilson

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Vernon O. WILSON, Jimmy Ray Wilson, Joe Wayne
Wilson, and Neoma Irene Wilson v. Penny
Elaine WILSON

95-1034                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered February 24, 1997


1.   Jurisdiction -- even erroneous judgment by probate court that
     has not been reversed cannot be attacked collaterally --
     subject-matter jurisdiction of courts of equity. -- Where a
     probate court has jurisdiction of the subject matter, its
     judgment, although erroneous, is conclusive, so long as it is
     not reversed, and cannot be attacked collaterally; courts of
     equity have subject-matter jurisdiction to grant relief from
     judgment obtained by fraud in probate court only when there is
     no adequate remedy at law or when some circumstance removes
     the probate court's jurisdiction.

2.   Judgment -- legal remedy exists for judgment obtained by fraud
     in probate court -- chancellor lacked subject-matter
     jurisdiction to review probate court's actions. -- There is an
     adequate legal remedy for a judgment obtained by fraud in
     probate court pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and (c)(4),
     which provides that a probate court may vacate an order that
     has been obtained by fraud; thus, chancery courts have no
     subject-matter jurisdiction to set aside a probate court's
     judgment when the probate court had subject-matter
     jurisdiction, even when fraud was used to obtain the judgment;
     here, the chancellor lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to
     review the probate court's actions, even though the chancellor
     found that fraud existed.

3.   Jurisdiction -- appellee sought to collaterally attack probate
     court's order -- appellee should have sought relief in probate
     court. -- Where the questions in issue were within the probate
     court's jurisdiction, appellee should have sought relief in a
     probate proceeding instead of attempting to collaterally
     attack the probate court's order; jurisdiction to hear an
     attack on the probate court's order was in the probate court
     because the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to review
     its own orders; the chancery court lacked subject-matter
     jurisdiction; the chancery court's order was reversed and
     appellee's complaint was dismissed.


     Appeal from Carroll Chancery Court, Eastern District; Donald
R. Huffman, Chancellor; reversed and dismissed.

     Ball & Mourton, Ltd., by:  Kenneth R. Mourton and Dee A.
Bailey, and Davis & Watson, P.A., by:  Cahrles E. Davis, for
appellants.
     F. Lewis Steenken, for appellee. 

     Donald L. Corbin, Justice.
     Appellants, Jimmy Ray Wilson, Joe Wayne Wilson, Neoma Irene
Wilson, and Vernon Wilson, the latter being deceased, appeal the
order of the Carroll County Chancery Court awarding title to
Appellee, Penny Elaine Wilson, of the 240 acres and any other
assets in their possession obtained from the estate of Appellee's
deceased father, Christopher Wilson.  For reversal, Appellants
contend the chancery court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to
review the probate court's actions, erred in ruling a constructive
trust existed pursuant to the will, and, alternatively, erred in
awarding the estate assets to Appellee.  The court of appeals
certified this case to us as presenting a question about the
construction of a will; our jurisdiction is pursuant to Ark. Sup.
Ct. R. 1-2(a)(16) and (d)(1) (as amended by per curiam July 15,
1996).  We find merit to Appellants' first argument that the
chancery court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and therefore
reverse and dismiss.  Accordingly, we need not address Appellants'
remaining two arguments for reversal.
     Appellants Jim and Joe Wilson and the decedent Christopher
Wilson are brothers. Their mother is Appellant Neoma Wilson and was
substituted as a party for their father Vernon Wilson, who is now
deceased.  Appellee Penny Wilson is Christopher's only child; she
was aged five years when her father died on July 30, 1976.
     Christopher's will was admitted to probate on August 10, 1977,
and named Appellants Jim and Joe as executors.  Appellant Jim was
appointed executor of Christopher's estate.
     The inventory Appellant Jim filed listed only one asset of the
estate valued at $18,000, the 240 acres of real estate in Carroll
County that is at the heart of this case.  Appellants offered
evidence that the land was encumbered by two mortgages totaling
$12,600, but there was no evidence of the mortgages in the probate
proceedings.  The inventory stated there were no household goods,
personal effects, or tangible or intangible personal property. 
Appellants testified, however, that Christopher left several items
of personal property including a saddle, a rope, and some silver
dollars, among other various items. 
     The portions of Christopher's will that are relevant to this
appeal state as follows:
                               2.

          It is my will and desire that my brothers, Jimmy Ray
     Wilson and Joe Wayne Wilson, of Route # 4, Huntsville,
     Arkansas, take jointly and unto the survivor, all my
     property, consisting of real, personal and mixed,
     wheresoever same may be situated; and that they and each
     of them, have authority without having to get any court
     orders, to take care of financial business upon my
     demise, to the best interests of my estate.
                               3.
          I have one child, named Penny Elaine Wilson, aged
     Two years, who now is in the legal custody of my divorced
     wife, Charley V. Wilson, her mother; and the where-a-
     bouts of both my divorced wife and child, is not now
     within my knowledge.

                               4.

          My daughter will be Twenty-one years of age on the
     8th day of January, 1992; and it is my desire, that my
     aforementioned brothers turn my entire estate, that they
     may have in their hands, and under their control over to
     my daughter, upon her reaching Twenty-one years of age,
     on the 8th day of January, 1992, if in their opinion she
     is capable of looking after same for her best interests;
     and if in their opinion, she is not capable of looking
     after this property for her best interests, then they are
     to continue to supervise the care of same, and turn the
     proceeds over to my daughter, as in their opinion her
     best interests may demand.

     The Probate Court of Carroll County entered an Order Approving
Final Account, Directing Distribution, and Discharging Personal
Representative on May 16, 1978, which awarded Christopher's entire
estate, including the 240 acres as joint tenants with right of
survivorship, to Appellants Jim and Joe.  Approximately six weeks
later, on June 30, 1978, Appellants Jim and Joe transferred the
property by quitclaim deed to their parents, Appellant Neoma and
Vernon, for the sum of one dollar and love and affection.  
     Appellee initiated this action in Carroll County Chancery
Court by filing a petition for an accounting of her father's estate
and to set aside the quitclaim deed.  She claimed that her father's
will devised his entire estate to Appellants Jim and Joe as co-
trustees for her benefit.  Appellee filed her petition on April 22,
1994, over two years after reaching age twenty-one.  Over
Appellants' objections to subject-matter jurisdiction, the
chancellor entered an order finding that a fiduciary relationship
existed between Appellants and Appellee and that evidence of fraud
existed, and ruling that Appellee receive title to the 240 acres
and any personal property of her father's in Appellants'
possession.  This appeal followed.
     As their first point for reversal, Appellants contend that the
trial court erred in assuming subject-matter jurisdiction of this
case and in reviewing the probate court's actions.  A review of the
trial court's findings and rulings are necessary for a true
understanding of this issue.
     The chancellor found that Appellee was never given notice of
the probate proceedings in her father's estate in accordance with
the Probate Code or the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and that
no guardian or guardian ad litem was ever appointed for her to take
notice.  The chancellor also found that no claims were made against
Christopher's estate and that, although Appellants offered evidence
that there were mortgages against the land at the time of
Christopher's death, there was no evidence of the mortgages in the
probate file.  Thus, the chancellor found that, because Appellants
Joe and Jim held the land free of debt, they were obligated to hold
it for Appellee's benefit, and when Appellants Joe and Jim
transferred the debt-free land to Appellant Neoma and Vernon, it
was without benefit to Appellee.  The chancellor thus concluded
that there was evidence of fraud and that Appellee was entitled to
the land. 
     Appellants rely on Article 7, Section 34 of the Arkansas
Constitution of 1874, which vests probate courts with "exclusive
original jurisdiction in matters relative to the probate of wills,
the estates of deceased persons, executors, [and]
administrators[.]"  Appellants also rely on the rule that when
exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate a matter has been fixed to a
specific court by the Arkansas Constitution or statute, such as
probate matters in the probate court, the chancery court is without
jurisdiction to act.  Liles v. Liles, 289 Ark. 159,