Craig v. Carrigo

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court held that Arkansas law governs the interpretation and effect of a foreign will devising Arkansas real property, including application of the pretermitted-heir statute. The court affirmed the determination that the decedent’s children were pretermitted heirs and upheld the finding that the purported common-law spouse had not proven marital status under Alberta law. The court dismissed the challenge to attorney’s fees because no timely notice of appeal was filed from the fee orders.

Holdings

1. Arkansas law, as the law of the situs, governs the effect and interpretation of a will purporting to devise real property located in Arkansas, even when the will was executed in a foreign jurisdiction and the proceeding is ancillary probate.
2. The appellants failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Arndt was recognized as Berrell's common-law spouse under Alberta law; therefore, the circuit court did not clearly err in denying her a dower interest.
3. When a will fails to mention or provide for a child and does not itself explain the omission, the child is entitled to inherit as if the decedent had died intestate, regardless of the testator's otherwise expressed intent.
4. A challenge to an attorney's-fee order entered after the judgment must be taken by a separate notice of appeal; absent a timely notice of appeal from the fee order, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss that part of the appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Arkansas or Alberta law governed the interpretation and effect of the will as to real property located in Arkansas.
2. Whether the evidence established that Erika Arndt was Berrell's common-law spouse under Alberta law and therefore entitled to a dower interest in the Arkansas real property.
3. Whether the decedent's expressed intent to leave all property to Arndt overcame Arkansas's pretermitted-children statute.
4. Whether the Supreme Court of Arkansas had jurisdiction to review the attorney's-fee and cost award when the appellants filed no notice of appeal from either fee order.

Disposition

dismissed