Court Opinion

ID: 9909940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-14 17:02:48.762952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:50:22.654502
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. 191
                SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
                                     No. CV-22-806

                              Opinion Delivered: December 14, 2023
 KRISTIN WELCH, AS
 ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE APPEAL FROM THE POPE
 OF AARON WELCH               COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
                    APPELLANT [NO. 58PR-21-359]

                                              HONORABLE GORDON W.
 V.                                           “MACK” MCCAIN, JR., JUDGE

                                              AFFIRMED.
 KATELYN GIPSON, AS NATURAL
 GUARDIAN OF MINOR 1 AND
 MINOR 2
                      APPELLEE

                            CODY HILAND, Associate Justice

       Appellant Kristin Welch appeals the September 22, 2022, probate order from the

Pope County Circuit Court, which declared Ark. Code Ann. § 28-39-201 (Repl. 2012) as

constitutional and found that Welch has no homestead interest in the property. On appeal,

Welch argues the circuit court erred in both determinations and seeks reversal. We find no

error and affirm.

       In September 2021, Aaron Welch (Decedent) died intestate leaving a widow, Kristin

Welch (Welch), and two minor children from his previous marriage to appellee Katelyn

Gipson (Gipson). Upon his death, Welch petitioned the court and was named administratrix

of Aaron Welch’s estate. In addition to certain personal property, the estate owns a

mortgaged home in Pope County, Arkansas, in which the Decedent and Welch had lived
since before their marriage in June 2021. As such, Welch filed an “Application for

Reservation of Homestead & Dower” with the court.

       Throughout the litigation, Gipson, as the natural guardian of the Decedent’s two

minor children, petitioned the court for the real property to be sold and for a determination

of heirs’ interest. Gipson specifically argued that, statutorily, Welch does not have a

homestead interest in the property. In response, Welch filed a motion to declare Ark. Code

Ann. § 28-39-201 unconstitutional. 1 After a hearing on the matter, the court denied

Welch’s motion and found, among other things not before this court on appeal, that Ark.

Code Ann. § 28-39-201 is constitutional and that Welch does not have a homestead interest

in the Decedent’s real property because she was not continuously married to the Decedent

for more than one year pursuant to section 28-39-201(d). Welch timely appealed.

       This court reviews probate proceedings de novo on the record, but it will not reverse

the decision of the circuit court unless it is clearly erroneous. Combs v. Stewart, 374 Ark.

409, 411–12, 288 S.W.3d 574, 575–76 (2008). A finding is clearly erroneous when,

although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. Similarly, in deciding matters or issues of law,

our standard of review is de novo. First Nat’l Bank of Izard Cnty. v. Old Republic Nat’l Title

Ins. Co., 2022 Ark. App. 440, 655 S.W.3d 108 (citations omitted). “De novo review means

that the entire case is open for review.” Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London v. Bass, 2015

Ark. 178, at 9, 461 S.W.3d 317, 323.

       1
        The Attorney General’s Office was properly notified of this challenge but declined
to intervene or file a response.

                                              2
       Welch’s argument relies entirely on her “constitutional right” to a homestead interest

as conferred by the Arkansas Constitution. The relevant section reads:

       If the owner of a homestead die, leaving a widow, but no children, and said
       widow has no separate homestead in her own right, the same shall be exempt,
       and the rents and profits thereof shall vest in her during her natural life;
       Provided, That if the owner leaves children, one or more, said child or
       children shall share with said widow, and be entitled to half the rents and
       profits till each of them arrives at twenty-one years of age – each child's rights
       to cease at twenty-one years of age – and the shares to go to the younger
       children; and then all to go to the widow; and, provided, that said widow or
       children may reside on the homestead or not. And in case of the death of the
       widow, all of said homestead shall be vested in the minor children of the
       testator or intestate.

Ark. Const. art. 9, § 6.

       However, the language of this constitutional provision predates the response to a

litany of cases by both the United States Supreme Court and the Arkansas Supreme Court,

wherein many gender-based laws were invalidated as unconstitutionally discriminatory. This

constitutional provision regarding homestead rights applied only to widows (women) and

apportioned homestead rights differently on the basis of whether the owner left surviving

children. In February 1981, the Arkansas Supreme Court, in deciding a constitutional

challenge to article 9, section 6, held that

       [t]his constitutional provision is discriminatory and we find no valid governmental
       function to justify this dissimilar treatment of widows and widowers. This provision
       as applied in this case violates the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no language in
       this section which will allow us to extend the homestead benefits to widowers
       without children, and, as a result, we hold the provision invalid as applied. We do
       not reach a decision on this section in the event there are children, as the State might
       make a valid argument that the provision is justifiable.

Hess v. Wims, 272 Ark. 43, 48, 613 S.W.2d 85, 87 (1981). This resulted in article 9, section

6 being held unconstitutional as applied to widows whose spouses died without children.

                                               3
       Shortly thereafter, in March 1981, the Arkansas legislature enacted Act 663 – “An

Act to Provide a Homestead Exemption; and for Other Purposes.” This Act codified the

constitutional homestead provisions as statutes in its attempt to make the inheritance laws

of this state gender neutral. The emergency clause of the Act states, in pertinent part, as

follows:

       It has been found and is declared by the General Assembly of Arkansas that
       existing law relating to homestead does not in all circumstances provide for
       the equal treatment between the sexes, that the constitutionality of such
       existing law has been drawn into question . . . and that there is an urgent need
       to insure that the law provides equality in the rights and interests of a surviving
       spouse in the homestead of his or her deceased spouse, without reference to
       the sex of the surviving spouse.

Homestead Exemption Act of 1981, § 9: Emergency Clause.

       In section 5 of the Act, codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 28-39-201, in addition to the

change in language from “widow” to “surviving spouse,” the statute provides that any rights

and benefits given by this section shall not vest until the parties have been continuously

married to each other for a period in excess of one year. Ark. Code. Ann. § 28-39-201(d).

       As such, in response to this constitutional challenge to the statute, this court

concludes that it must extend its holding in Hess. While Hess was limited to a factual scenario

in which children were not involved, the language of the constitution was never amended;

thus, it still fails to state a comparable homestead provision for male surviving spouses when

their spouse dies and leaves children. Because there has been no justification presented as to

the dissimilar treatment contemplated by the language, the remaining portion of article 9,

section 6 of the Arkansas Constitution is declared unconstitutional as a violation of the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

                                               4
       On appeal, Welch asks this court to determine whether Ark. Code Ann. § 28-39-

201(d) contravenes article 9, section 6. As determined supra, we conclude that the language

of the Arkansas Constitution contradicts the language of the Equal Protection Clause of the

United States Constitution. Therefore, the controlling and applicable language regarding

homestead interests remains only in statute. As it is undisputed by the parties that Welch

and the Decedent were not married more than one year, Welch is not afforded a statutory

homestead interest. See Ark. Code Ann. § 28-39-201(d). Thus, it cannot follow that an

error was committed in finding the same as a matter of law. 2 For these reasons, we hold that

the circuit court properly ruled that Welch did not have a statutory homestead interest in

the Decedent’s real property. Accordingly, after a thorough de novo review, we must affirm.

       Affirmed.

       Davidson Law Firm, by: Nickolas W. Dunn, for appellant.

       Taylor & Taylor Law Firm, P.A., by: Tory H. Lewis, Andrew M. Taylor, and Tasha C.

Taylor, for appellee.

       2
          Because we conclude Welch has no homestead interest under Arkansas law, we
need not further analyze the exceptions to the homestead doctrine pursuant to Ark. Const.
art. 9, section 3.

                                             5