Widmer v. Widmer
| Decision Date | 08 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-302,86-302 |
| Parties | Carl WIDMER, Appellant, v. Raymond WIDMER, Executor of the Estate of Walter Widmer, Deceased, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sebastian Probate Court, Fort Smith District, Sebastian County; Warren O. Kimbrough, Judge.
Carl Widmer, pro se.
Hardin, Jesson & Dawson by Bradley D. Jesson, Fort Smith, for appellee.
This is the third appeal in this case. Widmer v. Widmer, No. 85-217 (Ark.App. February 26, 1986) . Widmer v. Widmer, 288 Ark. 381, 705 S.W.2d 878 (1986). In the last appeal, we held that the fees received by the attorney for the estate could not be retained for services which he performed while his license was suspended for failure to pay his license fee. On remand, appellant argued the attorney knew that his license was suspended at the time of the hearing admitting the will into probate. Therefore, the attorney practiced deceit and fraud upon the probate court. A motion was filed to vacate the order admitting the will to probate. After a hearing the probate judge found that the motion was barred by the doctrine of law of the case and res judicata.
The appellant, Carl Widmer, argues that he had no proof or knowledge that the lawyer Tuohey acted with deceit and fraud until the matter was last remanded. Therefore, his motion to dismiss should not be barred by res judicata. The judge found otherwise; he correctly found that the motion could have been filed.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Widmer v. Touhey, 88-146
...See Widmer v. Widmer, 293 Ark. 296, 737 S.W.2d 457 (1987); Widmer v. Widmer, 292 Ark. 486, 731 S.W.2d 209 (1987); Widmer v. Widmer, 292 Ark. 384, 729 S.W.2d 422 (1987); Widmer v. Widmer, 288 Ark. 381, 705 S.W.2d 878 (1986); Widmer v. Widmer, 479 U.S. 849, 107 S.Ct. 173, 479 L.Ed.2d 109 (198......
- Williams v. Smart Chevrolet Co.
-
Simmons v. Estate of Wilkinson, 94-281
...It is not timely. Appellant seeks to do indirectly that which the statute does not permit her to do directly. See Widmer v. Widmer, 292 Ark. 384, 729 S.W.2d 422 (1987); Owen v. Owen, 267 Ark. 532, 592 S.W.2d 120 In a comparable chancery court case, Watkins v. Watkins, 242 Ark. 200, 412 S.W.......
-
Widmer v. Taylor
...case. Widmer v. Widmer, 293 Ark. 296, 737 S.W.2d 457 (1987); Widmer v. Widmer, 292 Ark. 486, 731 S.W.2d 209 (1987); Widmer v. Widmer, 292 Ark. 384, 729 S.W.2d 422 (1987); Widmer v. Widmer, 288 Ark. 381, 705 S.W.2d 878 (1986); Widmer v. Widmer, No. CA85-217 (Ark.App. February 26, 1986) This ......