## Facts

- Barrett Hamilton had two adult daughters from his first marriage, Melinda and Maron Hamilton.
- Barrett later married Virginia Hamilton; they were married for about 11 years.
- Barrett filed for divorce from Virginia, but he died while the divorce case was still pending and before any final divorce decree was entered.
- Because the divorce was not final at Barrett’s death, Virginia was treated as his surviving spouse for probate purposes.
- Barrett’s will provided Virginia only a dower interest in his property (a common-law life interest in a defined portion of the deceased spouse’s real and personal property) and left the remainder of his estate to his daughters.
- After Barrett’s death, Virginia renounced the will and elected to take against it under Arkansas’s elective-share statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 28-39-401.
- The daughters sued in probate court seeking to have the elective-share statute declared unconstitutional, arguing it violated equal protection and due process, and they asked the court to treat Barrett and Virginia as divorced.
- The probate court upheld the statute’s constitutionality and ruled that Virginia was entitled to take her elective share.
- The daughters appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the decedent’s daughters had standing to challenge the constitutionality of Arkansas’s elective-share statute when the widow’s election would reduce their inheritance.
2. Whether Ark. Code Ann. § 28-39-401 violates equal protection by granting surviving spouses elective-share rights not available to divorced spouses under divorce property-division statutes.
3. Whether the statute violates due process by impairing the heirs’ inheritance interests and the decedent’s testamentary intent by allowing the surviving spouse to take more than the will provided.
4. Whether, because a divorce was pending at death, the court should treat the parties as divorced and deny the surviving spouse the elective share.

## Decision

- The daughters had standing because the widow’s election would diminish their shares under the will.
- The elective-share statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 28-39-401, is constitutional under equal protection and due process guarantees.
- The court rejected the request to treat the parties as divorced; Barrett’s death before a final decree left Virginia as the surviving spouse eligible to elect against the will.
- Affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Beneficiaries whose financial interests are reduced by a surviving spouse’s election against a will have standing to challenge the statute authorizing the election.
- Statutes are presumed constitutional; the challenger bears the burden to show unconstitutionality, and doubts are resolved in favor of validity.
- Under rational-basis review, a statutory classification survives equal protection attack if any reasonably conceivable set of facts provides a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose.
- The legislature may distinguish between surviving spouses and divorced spouses in allocating property rights at the end of a marriage, so long as the distinction has a rational basis.
- Elective-share statutes are a constitutionally permissible limit on testamentary freedom because the state may protect surviving spouses from disinheritance or underinheritance.
- When a spouse dies before entry of a final divorce decree, the divorce action abates as to marital status, and the surviving spouse retains inheritance-related rights associated with that status, including elective-share rights.

## Conclusion

The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the probate court’s ruling that Virginia Hamilton, as the surviving spouse, could elect against Barrett Hamilton’s will under Ark. Code Ann. § 28-39-401, and it held that the daughters had standing but failed to prove the elective-share statute violated equal protection or due process, even though the election reduced their inheritance and the divorce was pending when Barrett died.


Hamilton v. Hamilton, 317 Ark. 572, 879 S.W.2d 416 (1994)