Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Knight v. Worthen Bank & Trust Co.
Citations: 1961 Ark. LEXIS 423; 233 Ark. 465; 345 S.W.2d 361Docket: 5-2367
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; April 17, 1961; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
The appeal addresses the administration of the Estate of Wyatt S. Parker, who died intestate on October 16, 1960, in Pulaski County, leaving behind a daughter, Mrs. Haddock, and a son, Paul, living with his mother, Mrs. Joy L. Knight, the appellant. Mr. Parker had been declared incompetent prior to his death, with Worthen Bank and Trust Company serving as his guardian under Pulaski Probate Court orders. Following Mr. Parker's death, the Probate Court authorized the Bank to administer his estate, with Mrs. Haddock's consent. On November 9, 1960, without notifying the Bank or Mrs. Haddock, Mrs. Knight obtained an order appointing herself as Administratrix of the estate. The Bank subsequently petitioned the Probate Court to annul this appointment, which led to a hearing where the court ultimately canceled Mrs. Knight's appointment and reaffirmed the Bank's role. Mrs. Knight appealed this decision. The court determined that under Ark. Stats. § 57-644, the Probate Court had discretion in appointing an administrator and was not compelled to appoint Mrs. Knight despite her claim of applying within the forty-day timeframe post Mr. Parker’s death. It was noted that she lacked priority under Ark. Stats. § 62-2201, as she was a divorced and remarried spouse intending to make a claim against the estate. The court also upheld the Probate Court's authority to revoke Mrs. Knight's appointment, recognizing that it could set aside orders made within the same term, as demonstrated by prior case law. The Probate Court expressed that it was unaware of the Bank's prior appointment when it approved Mrs. Knight's, and ultimately concluded that continuing the Bank's administration was in the estate's best interest. The appeal was affirmed in all respects. The terms of the Pulaski Chancery and Probate Courts were noted to coincide as dictated by Ark. Stats. § 22-406 and § 22-503.