Chambers v. Williams

• Decision Date: 30 October 1939
• Docket Number: 4-5618
• Citation: 132 S.W.2d 654,199 Ark. 40
• Parties: CHAMBERS, ADMINISTRATOR, v. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATOR
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

132 S.W.2d 654

199 Ark. 40

CHAMBERS, ADMINISTRATOR, v. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATOR

4-5618

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 30, 1939

Appeal from Sebastian Chancery Court; C. M. Wofford, Chancellor affirmed.

Decree affirmed.

Hill Fitzhugh & Brizzolara, for appellant.

Paul X. Williams, for appellee.

OPINION

GRIFFIN SMITH, C. J.

M. A Williams wrote his will in 1887. It has been construed twice by this court and is here a third time.

That part of the will necessary to a consideration of the instant case is:

"I bequeath all my lands, tenements and hereditaments and all household furniture, ready money, securities for money, goods, chattels and all other parts of my real and personal estate and effects whatsoever unto my wife, Georgianne R. Williams, and the heirs of her body to and for their absolute use and benefit for her lifetime subject only to the payment of my just debts, funeral and testamentary expenses and the charge of proving and recording this, my will."

In 1908--twenty-one years after execution of the will--M. A. Williams died. No children had been born to his union with Georgianne. The wife died in 1937, without issue. Elsewhere in this opinion she will be referred to as Mrs. Williams.

In 1924 Mrs. Williams, through the Sebastian Chancery Court, undertook to have her title confirmed in certain lots located in the city of Fort Smith, such lots having been owned by M. A. Williams at the time of his death. The complaint alleged that Mrs. Williams had title to the lots under the will of her husband; that in an ex parte proceeding had in 1908 it was decreed that she took a present absolute estate.

The demurrer of the heirs of M. A. Williams was sustained.

In Williams v. Williams, 167 Ark. 348, 268 S.W. 364, this court said: "The devise is to 'my wife, Georgianne R. Williams, and the heirs of her body.' If this was all the will said, it is clear, under [Watson v. Wolff-Goldman Realty Co., 95 Ark. 18, 128 S.W. 581, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 540] and numerous other cases cited in the briefs, that the wife would have taken only an estate for life, with remainder over to the heirs of her body, or her children, but, as no children were born to her, this life estate would expire, failing children, upon her death, and the remainder would pass in fee simple absolute to the heirs-at-law of the testator. The will, however, does not end with the words quoted, but these are followed by the words 'to and for their absolute use and benefit for her lifetime.' Do these last words enlarge the estate devised to the wife to a fee simple, subject to be opened up to let in children born to her who would share this fee simple title with her? The decision of this question is determinative of the testator's intention, and we do not answer it with the assurance of inerrancy. We have concluded that only an estate for life was granted to the wife, and even this estate was to be shared by her children during her lifetime, if any were born."

In 1937- '38 interested parties were again in court, this time seeking a construction of the will with respect to personal property. See Williams v. Chambers, 195 Ark. 654, 113 S.W.2d 722. After reviewing the holding in the Williams v. Williams Case, the opinion states: "It is true that real estate only was involved in the [former] case, but that does not in any way change the rule applicable to the personal property. . . . There is nothing in [the language of the will] to indicate that the testator intended to devise and bequeath a different estate in the real estate and personal property. The same intent on his part governed the disposition of both the real estate and personal property."

This decision, therefore, is authority for the proposition that a life estate only was bequeathed in the personal property. At the death of the life tenant the remainder descended to the heirs of M. A. Williams. The question is, What were Mrs. Williams' rights during the life period?

The will executed by Mrs. Williams left to devisees and legatees all of the property to which she had title at the time of her death.

Upon remand of the Williams-Chambers Case (February 21, 1938), the chancellor appointed a master who stated an account of the personal property. The report showed that Mrs. Williams received $ 20,388.13 through her husband, and $ 14,315 from independent sources. Residue of both estates was $ 8,601.25. No exceptions were filed to the master's report.

On behalf of those who stood to benefit through Mrs. Williams' will it is contended that she exhausted the whole of her husband's personal estate, and that the item of $ 8,601.25 is her separate estate.

Consonant with this court, the chancellor held that Mrs. Williams had but a life estate in the personal property which constituted the item of $ 20,388.13 identified in the master's report. Judgments were given in favor of the remaindermen, as their interests appeared, for amounts aggregating $ 20,388.13. A lien was declared to secure the judgments. This appeal is from action of the chancellor in refusing to hold that the residue of Mrs. Williams' estate and that of her husband's estate represented holdings other than values arising through M. A. Williams.

Mrs. Williams did not keep separate accounts. Her own funds were mingled with moneys received from her husband. There was no thought, apparently, that an accounting would be required. Certainly no imputation of intentional bad faith is shown or suggested. On the contrary it is quite obvious that Mrs. Williams honestly believed the personal estate was hers to do with as she thought proper. However, this fact itself renders segregation impossible. No one can say, with any degree of conviction, that all or any appreciable part of the balance unexpended in 1937 was residuary in respect of the estate of M. A. Williams, or that it was, or was not, a personal acquisition. The nature of the transactions and the very fact of good faith make accounting impossible.

The weight of decisions, as stated in Ruling Case Law, vol. 26, § 214, is that when a person mingles trust funds with his own funds so that the former cannot be segregated from the latter, the cestui que trust is entitled to a charge upon the new investment to the extent of the trust money traceable to it.

An interesting discussion of this subject is found in vol. 3 of Scott on Trusts, § 517, beginning on page 2470. It will be noted that the text writer in the section referred to deals with one who is a "conscious wrongdoer" for it is said: "Where a person who is...