Peterson v. Peck
Arkansas Court of Appeals
430 S.W.3d 797 (2013)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Robert Peck owned a mobile created by artist Alexander Calder (the Calder). In April 2001, Robert wrote a letter to his daughter, Capi Peterson (plaintiff) giving her the Calder but retaining the right to display it in his home during his lifetime. Robert also told Peterson verbally that he wanted her to have the Calder after his death. In May 2001, Robert created a trust for the sole benefit of his wife, Hannah Peck (defendant). The trust named Robert as trustee and Hannah as successor trustee. In June 2001, Robert conveyed to the trust all of his household and personal property, including his works of art. The document conveying the property specified that the conveyance was intended to revoke all previous declarations of ownership. Robert later amended and restated the trust and executed a new will granting all of his artwork to Hannah. Robert retained possession of the Calder until his death. After Robert’s death, Hannah sold the Calder for $3.7 million. Peterson sued Hannah seeking damages for the sale of the mobile. Peterson argued that the April 2001 letter was evidence that Robert had made an inter vivos gift of the Calder to her and that Hannah had not had the right to sell it. The trial court dismissed Peterson’s complaint, and Peterson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Walmsley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 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.
