Cowan v. Powell

Citations: 219 Ark. 498; 243 S.W.2d 373; 1951 Ark. LEXIS 552Docket: 4-9590

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; November 5, 1951; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Geraldine Cowan, the widow of Bill Cowan, initiated a lawsuit to recover assets from the estate, claiming that Billie Faye Powoll, Cowan's daughter from a previous marriage, possessed these assets. Cowan's will left Geraldine a nominal amount while bequeathing the remainder of his estate to Billie Faye. During the trial, the chancellor ruled that neither party was required to return any property to the estate, leading both to appeal.

One significant issue involved a bank account established by Cowan in Billie Faye's name, which contained $2,325.45 at the time of Cowan's death. Geraldine argued that this account was an estate asset, asserting that Cowan was merely managing his own funds in his daughter's name. However, the chancellor determined that the account belonged to Billie Faye, supported by evidence that Cowan intended the $5,000 deposit as a gift or settlement of his guardianship obligations. Testimony indicated that Cowan informed Billie Faye the money was hers, and she requested he continue investing it. Billie Faye's cross-appeal sought to hold the estate responsible for the difference between the initial deposit and the remaining balance, but the court found insufficient evidence of mismanagement or wrongful spending by Cowan.

Another issue stemmed from a Chevrolet car Cowan gifted to Billie Faye in 1946. Geraldine claimed this should be considered an advancement against the estate's distribution. However, there was no evidence suggesting Cowan intended the car as a pre-death gift related to estate distributions.

Cowan's intention regarding a gift as an advancement to his daughter is scrutinized, referencing *Holland v. Bonner*. The doctrine of advancements, intended to ensure equal treatment among children, is questionable in the context of a sole child. Evidence shows Cowan had promised his daughter a car during WWII, which he ultimately gifted her in 1946, indicating no intent for advancement. A second car, a Buick, was bought and registered in Cowan's name; though a chancellor found it given to Geraldine, this is disputed. Testimonies reveal mixed interpretations of the car's ownership, but Cowan's ownership and payment are clear, requiring Geraldine to prove a gift, which she fails to do.

Billie Faye claims her stepmother possesses warehouse receipts for cotton owned by Cowan, but the case hinges on credibility, as she asserts having seen the receipts while Geraldine denies possession. The chancellor's judgment is pivotal in resolving this conflict, leading to the conclusion that Billie Faye has not established her right to injunctive relief, without prejudice to estate actions if receipts are found.

The most complex issue involves $1,606 found in Cowan's safety deposit box, with each envelope labeled with Billie Faye's name. Without proof of delivery, Billie Faye would lack a claim to the funds, as established in *Umberger v. Westmoreland*. However, she asserts the money was delivered to her after selling a house to Cowan, where part of the payment was in cash. Following the sale, Cowan provided her with the cash, which they secured in envelopes at his office.

Cowan's envelopes containing $1,606 were found in his deposit box after his death. Billie Faye was permitted by the bank to take the money, but the appellant seeks to recover it for the estate. Billie Faye bore the burden of proof to establish that the property belonged to her, but her evidence was insufficient due to numerous inconsistencies. The claimed cash amount of $1,606 could not be accurately calculated based on the invoices provided. Additionally, the cashier's check of $1,169.17 raised questions, as it coincided with Cowan's withdrawal of $69.17 from a different account, suggesting a connection that undermines her claims. The circumstances surrounding the transaction, including the timing and method of money handling, cast doubt on her narrative. Notably, the envelopes had different notations, implying they were addressed at different times, which was inconsistent with Cowan addressing them simultaneously. As a result, the evidence did not support a finding of manual delivery to Billie Faye. Although the chancellor initially awarded the money to Billie Faye, citing symbolic delivery via a key given to Mrs. Powell, Cowan retained another key, negating exclusive control. The court reversed the decree regarding the cash and Buick, directing that these assets be surrendered to the estate, while affirming other aspects of the decree. Judge Ward dissented on one part of the opinion.