Pfaff v. Clements
Citation | 213 S.W.2d 356,213 Ark. 852 |
Decision Date | 05 July 1948 |
Docket Number | 4-8583 |
Parties | Pfaff, Administratrix v. Clements |
Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Rehearing Denied October 4, 1948.
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Frank H. Dodge, Chancellor.
Reversed.
John R. Thompson, Bailey & Warren and Walls Trimble, for appellant.
U A. Gentry, for appellee.
Ed. F McFaddin, Justice. Robins, J., disqualified and not participating.
Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice.
The decisive question is the validity of the alleged family settlement.
In 1946, Samuel Ernest Pfaff died intestate, survived only by (a) Terrence Pfaff, a son; (b) Justine Pfaff Petre, a daughter; and (c) two grandchildren, Carel Heizman Clements and Carl E. Heizman II, who were the only children of Ernestine Pfaff Heizman, a daughter of Samuel Ernest Pfaff, who had predeceased her father. Terrence Pfaff was appointed administrator of the estate of Samuel Ernest Pfaff, but before completion of the administration, Terrence Pfaff died intestate and childless. He was survived by (a) his wife, Anna Mae Pfaff; (b) his sister, Justine Petre; (c) his niece, Carel Heizman Clements; and (d) his nephew, Carl E. Heizman II, as his sole and only heirs at law. The nephew was a minor; the sister and niece were adults. The estate of Samuel Ernest Pfaff consisted of both realty and personalty; and the estate of Terrence Pfaff consisted in part of the inheritance from the estate of Samuel Ernest Pfaff.
Mrs. Petre, Mrs. Clements and Carl E. Heizman II voluntarily signed and delivered to Anna Mae Pfaff (the widow of Terrence Pfaff) an instrument reading:
"We, the undersigned heirs to the estate of the late Samuel Ernest Pfaff, request that Mrs. Anna Mae Pfaff, widow of Terrence O. Pfaff, deceased, be granted one-third (1/3) of the estate of the late Samuel Ernest Pfaff, and which the late Terrence O. Pfaff would have received."
It is not claimed that there was any fraud, imposition or over-reaching by Mrs. Anna Mae Pfaff in obtaining the instrument. Mrs. Petre testified:
And, again, Mrs. Petre testified: "
Later, each of the signers -- that is, the sister, niece and nephew of Terrence Pfaff -- decided to repudiate the said instrument. This litigation was instituted by them in the chancery court to have such repudiation judicially declared. Since Carl E. Heizman II is a minor, his legal right of repudiation is admitted; but appellant (defendant below) denied the right of the sister and niece -- that is, Mrs. Petre and Mrs. Clements -- to repudiate the instrument, which defendant claimed was a valid "family settlement." From a decree of the chancery court allowing such repudiation, there is this appeal.
The appellees (plaintiffs below) thus state the issue here: "The sole question to be determined is the legal effect of the instrument signed by the appellees, and whether or not the same might be revoked by the signatory parties."
Appellees further state their position, regarding the alleged family settlement, in this language:
We are thus presented with the question of whether the instrument signed by the appellees was a valid and sufficient family settlement. There is a vast number of cases in Arkansas which have discussed family settlements. Some of them are: Pate v. Johnson, 15 Ark. 275; Turner v. Davis, 41 Ark. 270; Mooney v. Rowland, 64 Ark. 19, 40 S.W. 259; LaCotts v. Quertermous, 84 Ark. 610, 107 S.W. 167; Martin v. Martin, 98 Ark. 93, 135 S.W. 348; Giers v. Hudson, 102 Ark. 232, 143 S.W. 916; Felton v. Brown, 102 Ark. 658, 145 S.W. 552; Ellison v. Smith, 107 Ark. 614, 156 S.W. 417; Dudgeon v. Dudgeon, 119 Ark. 128, 177 S.W. 402; Sursa v. Wynn, 137 Ark. 117, 207 S.W. 209; Caldcleugh v. Caldcleugh, 158 Ark. 224, 250 S.W. 324; Davis v. Davis, 171 Ark. 168, 283 S.W. 360; Tandy v. Smith, 173 Ark. 828, 293 S.W. 735; Hollowoa v. Buck, 174 Ark. 497, 296 S.W. 74; Outlaw v. Finney, 175 Ark. 502, 1 S.W.2d 38; Skaggs v. Prince, 176 Ark. 1170, 5 S.W.2d 927; Purinton v. Purinton, 190 Ark. 523, 80 S.W.2d 651; Edwards v. Swilley, 196 Ark. 633, 118 S.W.2d 584; Barnett v. Barnett, 199 Ark. 754, 135 S.W.2d 828; Stark v. Stark, 201 Ark. 133, 143 S.W.2d 875; Shell v. Sheets, 202 Ark. 708, 152 S.W.2d 301; Randall v. Kimball, 205 Ark. 970, 172 S.W.2d 22; Mills v. Alexander, 206 Ark. 754, 177 S.W.2d 406; and Johnson v. Williams, 207 Ark. 94, 179 S.W.2d 654. In these cases there is the common refrain that family settlements are favored, and should be encouraged where no fraud or imposition was practiced.
Similar general statements regarding family settlements may be found in the standard textbooks. There are annotations on family settlements in 6 A. L. R. 555; 38 A. L. R. 759; and 54 A. L. R. 976. See, also, 12 C. J. 322, 362; 15 C. J. S. Compromise and Settlement, §§ 3, 9, pp. 715, 727; 58 C. J. 992; 5 R. C. L. 880; and 11 Am. Juris. 258.
A study of our cases, and also those from other jurisdictions, fails to disclose any definition, or any statement listing all of the essential ingredients of a family settlement. Notwithstanding such absence, there are, however, some matters that are clear; and these are sufficient for a decision in the case at bar:
1. It is not necessary that there be a previous dispute or controversy between the members of the family before a valid family settlement may be made. Thus, in Martin v. Martin, supra, there was no dispute at the time of the conveyance or will in question, yet the agreement was called a "family settlement"; and Mr. Justice Frauenthal, speaking for the court, used this language:
The case last cited in the above quotation is that of Good Fellows v. Campbell, 17 R. I. 403, 13 L. R. A. 601, wherein there had been no previous dispute, yet a family settlement was upheld; and the opinion contains this pertinent language:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brewer v. Brewer
...of the Will or a provision or bequest in a Will, the existence of a dispute is not ordinarily a prerequisite. See Pfaff v. Clements, 213 Ark. 852, 213 S.W.2d 356 (1948). Some courts require settlement agreements to be presented for approval to their States' equivalent of our Orphans' Courts......
- Pfaff v. Clements
-
Jones v. Balentine, CA
...estate. It is true that most of the cases cited by appellant do involve heirs, spouses, and distributees. However, Pfaff v. Clements, 213 Ark. 852, 213 S.W.2d 356 (1948), and Turner v. Davis, 41 Ark. 270 (1883), lend support to appellees' position. In Pfaff, the Arkansas Supreme Court quote......
-
Machen v. Machen
...of a valid will. Hobbs, 232 Ark. at 598, 339 S.W.2d at 321. Family-settlement agreements are favorites of the law. Pfaff v. Clements, 213 Ark. 852, 855, 213 S.W.2d 356, 358 (1948). Courts of equity have uniformly upheld and sustained [2011 Ark. 6]family arrangements in reference to property......