Mills v. Holland, 91-222
| Decision Date | 16 December 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-222,91-222 |
| Citation | 820 S.W.2d 63,307 Ark. 418 |
| Parties | Rebecca Mayfield MILLS as Trustee Under the Last Will and Testament of E.P. Rainey, Deceased; and Rebecca Mayfield Mills and E.C. Rainey, Appellants, v. Elizabeth HOLLAND, J.L. Rainey, Juanita Stark, Joy Carrier Phillips, Molly Suzanne Matthews, Molly Rainey, Deborah Mills Hodges, Angela Huchingson, Rebecca Grace Wood, Lyne Stark Bassett, William P. Rainey, Scott Rainey Mills, Kathy Kibe and Emily Cockrill, Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Donald A. Forrest, W. Memphis, for appellants.
Joe M. Rogers, W. Memphis, Janis Richardson, Alexander, for appellees.
E.P. Rainey died August 9, 1970. His will has previously been the subject of an appeal in this court. Holland v. Rainey, No. 77-306, 1978 WL 857. This particular appeal involves two testamentary trusts. In his will, E.P. Rainey conveyed various tracts of land in Arkansas and Mississippi to two of his sons as trustees. The income from the trusts is for the benefit of his seven children and the corpus is to be distributed per stirpes to his children's heirs. Appellants seek reversal of a judgment declaring their duties and powers with respect to the allocation of expenses between income and corpus. We are unable to reach the merits of this appeal because appellants have failed to abstract a necessary part of the record. Ark.Sup.Ct.R. 9(d). We therefore affirm. Peterson Indus., Inc. v. Farmer, 288 Ark. 298, 705 S.W.2d 8 (1986).
Appellants contend E.P. Rainey's will contains ambiguous provisions with respect to their powers as trustees. Zini v. Perciful, 289 Ark. 343, 344, 711 S.W.2d 477, 478 (1986).
The will is a written instrument which could have been abstracted in words. As is the case when deeds, contracts, or other instruments are being interpreted, the better practice would have been for counsel to have copied the will verbatim in the abstract. Id. Instead, in the argument portion of their brief, appellants quote selected portions of the will and then discuss those parts of the will they consider to be controlling. "Such a discussion does not comply with Rule 9(d), which requires an impartial abstract of such material matters in the record as are necessary to an understanding of the questions presented." Napier v. Northrum, 264 Ark. 406, 411, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. v. Doss
...do so. Edwards v. Neuse, 312 Ark. 302, 849 S.W.2d 479 (1993); Hunter v. Williams, 308 Ark. 276, 823 S.W.2d 894 (1992); Mills v. Holland, 307 Ark. 418, 820 S.W.2d 63 (1991); Zini v. Perciful, 289 Ark. 343, 711 S.W.2d 477 (1986); Shorter University v. Franklin, 75 Ark. 571, 88 S.W. 974 Theref......
-
Mangiapane v. State
...though our review of this case is de novo, our review is on the record as abstracted, not upon the transcript. Id. Mills v. Holland, 307 Ark. 418, 820 S.W.2d 63 (1991). I ...
-
Hooker v. Deere Credit Services, Inc.
...presented in an appeal has been stated time and time again. See Ark. Sup.Ct. and Ct. of App. R. 4-2(b)(2); see e.g., Mills v. Holland, 307 Ark. 418, 820 S.W.2d 63 (1991). We next consider whether the trial court properly dismissed the Hookers' action, because we need not reach the remaining......
-
Estate of Brumley, Matter of, 95-972
...with this Court, and we will not do so. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. v. Doss, 320 Ark. 660, 899 S.W.2d 464 (1995). In Mills v. Holland, 307 Ark. 418, 820 S.W.2d 63 (1991), we affirmed a comparable case for failure to adequately abstract a will. We commented that the will was a written instrume......