Apple v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 15 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-365,No. 2,77-365,2 |
| Citation | 263 Ark. 467,565 S.W.2d 436 |
| Parties | Harrison APPLE and Sadie Apple, Appellants, v. Lola Person COOPER, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Gordon, Gordon & Eddy, Morrilton, for appellants.
Kenneth M. Parsley, Dardanelle, Richard L. Peel, Russellville, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a chancery court decree finding that Walter Cooper, now deceased, did not orally contract to will 80 acres of land in Yell County, Arkansas, to Harrison and Sadie Apple. The Apples appeal the decision of the chancellor alleging that the court was in error. We disagree and affirm the decree.
In 1941 Walter Cooper was living on the 80 acres of land in question with his wife, Lola, and his sister, Viola Clark. Viola was the mother of appellant Sadie Apple. Walter and Lola decided to move to Dardanelle. Both Harrison Apple and Sadie Apple testified that there was an oral agreement that if they would move on the place and take care of Viola Clark for as long as she lived, then on the death of Walter Cooper the 80 acres would be theirs.
Viola Clark died in 1968. Walter Cooper died intestate in 1972. A son of the appellants testified that he knew in general that there was an agreement as stated by his parents.
An acquaintance of Walter Cooper's testified that he had heard Walter say one time,
It was undisputed that the appellants made considerable improvements to the property during the years they lived on the 80 acres. According to their testimony this was because they thought the place would be theirs eventually. However, there was testimony that the improvements were made with the permission of Walter Cooper. The appellants moved off the 80 acres in 1969 and filed this action in 1973.
Walter Cooper's widow, Lola, testified that she did not know anything about such an agreement and that her only knowledge of any dealings regarding the property was when Harrison Apple came to talk to her husband about buying some land. Walter Cooper owned six or seven hundred acres in the area. The appellant, Harrison Apple, and his son testified the conversation with Walter about buying land was regarding all of the other land that Walter Cooper owned and did not involve the 80 acres in question.
Harrison Apple testified that he paid rent to Walter Cooper according to the customary landlord-tenant agreement in the area.
The appellants, in an excellent brief, correctly point out that Arkansas does recognize oral contracts to make a will as valid and enforceable contracts. Crowell v. Parks, 209 Ark. 803, 193 S.W.2d 483 (1946). Although our cases vary a little on the terminology identifying the burden of proof in such a case, no doubt such a contract must be proven by more than a preponderance of evidence. We have said that the evidence must be clear, cogent, satisfactory and convincing; or clear, satisfactory and convincing; and, in one instance, clear, satisfactory, convincing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
May v. Bob Hankins Distributing Co., 89-261
...we review chancery cases de novo, and the chancellor's decision will be affirmed if correct for any reason. See Apple v. Cooper, 263 Ark. 467, 565 S.W.2d 436 (1978). We first address the appellee's argument that the chancellor's ruling can be affirmed, because the default judgments should h......
-
Davis v. Davis
...is correct for any reason the decision will be affirmed. Ferguson v. Green, 266 Ark. 556, 587 S.W.2d 18 (1979); Apple v. Cooper, 263 Ark. 467, 565 S.W.2d 436 (1978). In the present case, C. E. Davis alleged wilful desertion. This he failed to prove. He did, however, prove three years separa......
-
Hyde v. C M Vending Co., Inc.
...contract. See Daughtry v. Capital Gas Co., 285 Ala. 89, 229 So.2d 480 (1969). As equity cases are reviewed de novo, Apple v. Cooper, 263 Ark. 467, 565 S.W.2d 436 (1978), this court may modify the 3. Damages The appellants devote two points in their principal brief to damages. First, they co......
-
Moore v. City of Blytheville, CA80-437
...Of course, we review Chancery cases de novo, and if the Chancellor is correct for any reason, we affirm the decision. Apple v. Cooper, 263 Ark. 467, 565 S.W.2d 436 (1978). We agree with the Chancellor that the doctrine of laches does apply to the condemnation damage claims. The Moore family......