In re Estate of Thompson
Arkansas Supreme Court
434 S.W.3d 877 (2014)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
H. Ripley Thompson (Ripley) suffered from poor health and spent his last year of life in a nursing home. While there, he executed a new will that bequeathed his wife, Anne Thompson (plaintiff) only $100,000. He simultaneously created an inter vivos revocable trust into which he placed most of his assets. While the trust could be revoked during Ripley’s lifetime, Arkansas law automatically rendered it irrevocable upon his death, meaning that the trust property would not be included in Ripley’s estate. The new will and trust suggested a purposeful intent to prevent Anne from accessing Ripley’s assets after his death, likely because of recent discord between the spouses. When Ripley died, the trust property had a value of over $5.8 million, while Ripley’s remaining assets had a value of only $230,471. Instead of accepting the $100,000 bequeathed to her in Ripley’s will, Anne sought to take an elective share of Ripley’s estate. Under Arkansas law, the elective share allowed Anne to receive the share of Ripley’s real and personal property that she would have taken if he died intestate. Anne filed suit against trustee Vance Thompson (defendant), arguing that the trust property should be included in Ripley’s estate to calculate the elective share because the trust was specifically created to undermine Anne’s elective-share right. The circuit court held in Anne’s favor. Vance appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Corbin, J.)
Dissent (Hart, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.