Screeton v. Crumpler, 81-41
| Decision Date | 22 June 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-41,81-41 |
| Parties | Betty SCREETON, Appellant v. Billy Ray CRUMPLER, Executor, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
W. B. Guthrie, Jr., Ltd., Des Arc, by Robert M. Abney, Little Rock, for appellant.
Thweatt & Bayne, P. A., by James J. Bayne, Hazen, for appellee.
The only question here is whether the probate judge abused his discretion in dismissing, for want of good faith prosecution, the appellant's contest of the will of Sammie Elaine Screeton. We find no error.
The decedent's will was admitted to probate in Prairie county on January 16, 1980, following her death on January 10. In April the appellant, a resident of Florida, filed a petition contesting the will for testamentary incapacity and undue influence. The petition did not indicate what interest the appellant had in the proceeding. The executor promptly filed a response denying the invalidity of the will and asserting (1) that the appellant had no standing in the case because she was not a devisee, heir, or creditor of the testatrix, and (2) that the will contest was motivated by malice toward the testatrix and her beneficiaries.
In its order of dismissal the trial court found, we think with justification, that thereafter the appellant failed to proceed in good faith. First, when the court set the matter for trial on August 20 and ordered her to appear for a discovery deposition on August 1, a continuance was granted because she had "business conflicts" on both dates. The trial was reset for September 24, but her attorney obtained a continuance because she had told him she was to undergo emergency "biopsy surgery" in Texas during that week. The discovery deposition was reset for November 21, but her lawyer apparently appeared for her and said that she would not appear without having been tendered compensation for her expenses.
The will contest and a motion for its dismissal were finally set for hearing on December 1. The executor and his counsel appeared for the hearing with several witnesses. Again the appellant did not appear. Her attorney stated that he had not heard from her that day and that she had instructed him to stand on the position that she "should be tendered her expenses for the trip to Arkansas, compensated for time lost from her employment, and any other related expenses prior to her coming to offer her testimony." The court sustained the motion to dismiss the will contest.
In seeking a reversal the appellant concedes that the trial court had discretion whether to dismiss the contest, but she insists that the court should have inquired, before dismissing it, about the appellees' ability to proceed by depositions on written questions, by interrogatories, or by requests for admissions. That argument, however, puts the responsibility for diligence on the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sypult
...Travelodge International, Inc. v. Handleman National Book Co., 288 Ark. 368, 705 S.W.2d 440 (1986). See also Screeton v. Crumpler, 273 Ark. 167, 617 S.W.2d 847 (1981). We should have based our decisions in the Curtis and St. Clair cases on the substance-procedure distinction rather than one......
-
Helena Regional Medical Center v. Wilson
...of Baby Boy Martindale, 327 Ark. 685, 940 S.W.2d 491 (1997); Brantley v. Davis, 305 Ark. 68, 805 S.W.2d 75 (1991); Screeton v. Crumpler, 273 Ark. 167, 617 S.W.2d 847 (1981). In each of these cases, the statute creating the special proceeding provided for a procedure that is different from t......
-
McCastlain v. Elmore
...491 (1997)(holding that a petition to set aside an adoption decree could not be dismissed without prejudice); and Screeton v. Crumpler, 273 Ark. 167, 617 S.W.2d 847 (1981)(holding that a will contestant could not take a nonsuit). In Screeton v. Crumpler, we The appellant's brief implies tha......
-
Craig v. Craig
...will contest is not a civil proceeding but rather a special proceeding in probate court, governed by statute. Screeton v. Crumpler , 273 Ark. 167, 617 S.W.2d 847 (1981) ; Coleman v. Coleman , 257 Ark. 404, 520 S.W.2d 239 (1974). The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to give effect ......