## Facts

- Robert Peck possessed an Alexander Calder mobile (*Autumn Leaves*) originally purchased by Peterson’s grandparents in the 1950s.
- In May 2001, Robert created a revocable trust primarily for the lifetime support of his wife, Hannah, naming himself trustee and Hannah successor trustee.
- In April 2001, Robert sent Peterson a letter stating he was “giving” her the Calder but reserving the right to keep and display it in his home during his lifetime.
- On June 15, 2001, Robert executed a declaration conveying “all tangible” household/personal property, including works of art, to a Peck Family Trust and stating it was intended to revoke all prior declarations of ownership.
- In 2005, Robert amended/restated the trust and executed a will leaving “all artwork” and most personal property to Hannah if she survived him, with remaining property pouring over into the trust.
- Robert died in 2006. Hannah asserted she received the Calder under the estate plan, sold it for approximately $3.7 million, and invested the proceeds in an offshore scheme later associated with Allen Stanford.
- In 2010 (and again by amended complaint in 2011), Peterson sued Hannah individually and as trustee, claiming ownership of the Calder by inter vivos gift, alleging wrongful sale, and seeking damages and trust-related relief.
- After a bench trial, the circuit court found no inter vivos gift, found the Calder did not pass to Peterson through the trust, and found Peterson forfeited any beneficiary interest under a trust forfeiture clause by challenging the trustee’s actions.

## Issues

1. Whether Robert made a valid inter vivos gift of the Calder to Peterson, requiring donative intent, delivery, acceptance, and an unconditional relinquishment of dominion and control.
2. Whether the June 15, 2001 declaration transferring tangible personal property (including artwork) to the trust, together with the later will and trust restatement, governed ownership of the Calder notwithstanding the April 2001 letter.
3. Whether Peterson’s litigation challenging the trustee triggered a trust forfeiture clause eliminating any beneficial interest.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment after the bench trial.
- The court held Peterson failed to prove a completed inter vivos gift because Robert retained possession and control and did not unconditionally surrender present and future dominion over the Calder.
- The court gave effect to Robert’s later estate-planning instruments, including the June 15, 2001 declaration transferring all tangible personal property and works of art to the trust and the 2005 will leaving artwork to Hannah.
- The court upheld the circuit court’s determination that Peterson forfeited any beneficiary interest under the trust’s forfeiture clause based on her challenges to the trustee.

## Legal Principles

- A valid inter vivos gift requires donative intent, delivery, acceptance, and the donor’s unconditional release of all present and future dominion and control over the property.
- Retention of possession and an expressed right to keep and display the property during the donor’s lifetime is strong evidence that dominion and control were not surrendered and that no present gift was completed.
- Formal trust and estate instruments transferring broad categories of property (including artwork) and revoking prior declarations can supersede earlier informal writings suggesting a gift.
- A trust forfeiture (no-contest) clause may be enforced to eliminate a beneficiary’s interest when the beneficiary brings actions deemed to violate the clause, absent reversible error.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the widow/trustee, concluding the daughter did not establish a completed inter vivos gift because the donor retained dominion and control, and holding that later trust and will documents governed ownership of the artwork and supported enforcement of the trust’s forfeiture clause against the beneficiary’s challenges.


Peterson v. Peck, 430 S.W.3d 797 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013)