In re Estate of Smith

Arkansas Court of Appeals · 2024 · Contracts

ContractsProbateLaw of the CaseRemandJoint Tenancy and Survivorshipprobate appealgeneral remandsummary judgment

Facts

Eunice Smith executed a 2012 deed transferring her real property to Martin and Sonja, and in 2014 Martin and Sonja deeded 99 percent of their interest back to Eunice while retaining 1 percent, with an attached survivorship agreement stating that Eunice, Martin, and Sonja held the property like joint tenants with right of survivorship and that Eunice's 99 percent interest would pass to Martin and Sonja at her death. In the original probate litigation, Lloyd and Derrell challenged the will and sought a constructive trust, while DHS separately argued that Eunice's 99 percent interest belonged to the estate and that the 2014 conveyance did not pass title to Martin and Sonja by survivorship. In its 2018 order, the circuit court rejected the title challenge and concluded the 2014 deed created an enforceable right of survivorship, then imposed a constructive trust in favor of the estate. In the first appeal, the constructive trust was reversed as time-barred, but the deed-interpretation ruling was not cross-appealed by Lloyd and Derrell; on remand they sought for the first time to have the 2014 deed interpreted as creating a tenancy in common.

Issue

After a general remand reversing only the constructive-trust remedy, could Lloyd and Derrell newly challenge the legal effect of the 2014 deed and survivorship agreement when that issue had been available earlier, had been addressed in the prior proceedings through DHS's similar challenge, and had not been raised by them or preserved through a cross-appeal? Also, could Martin obtain relief on cross-appeal from unfavorable language in the order that he had not challenged below?

Rule

Under the mandate rule, a sub-species of the law-of-the-case doctrine, an appellate court's decision is conclusive not only as to questions actually decided in the first appeal but also as to those that could have been raised and decided in the first appeal but were not. On remand, the trial court has jurisdiction only to the extent conferred by the appellate opinion and mandate, and neither new proof nor new defenses may be raised after remand when inconsistent with that mandate. In addition, when no cross-appeal is taken from a ruling, that ruling becomes the law of the case, and arguments not raised in the trial court are not preserved for appellate review.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a probate dispute in Little Rock, a circuit court ruled that a 2019 transfer agreement gave Nolan Price valid survivorship rights in a lake cabin, but it also imposed a constructive trust in favor of the estate. On appeal, the constructive trust was reversed as untimely, and the appellate court issued a general remand without specific instructions. Back in circuit court, the decedent's daughters argued for the first time that the transfer agreement actually created a tenancy in common and left most of the cabin in the estate.

How should the circuit court rule on the daughters' new argument?

Explanation. The majority held that after a general remand, parties may not use remand to assert a new theory inconsistent with the prior proceedings when that theory could have been raised earlier. The first appellate decision is conclusive not only as to issues actually decided, but also those that could have been raised and decided in the first appeal. Because the earlier title ruling was not cross-appealed, it became law of the case. (Derived from In re Estate of Smith (n.d.).)