## Facts

- R.A. Pickens died testate in 1991 and devised the family homestead to his third wife, Carol Pickens.
- R.A.’s adult children from his first marriage sued seeking (1) a declaration they owned the homestead, or (2) specific performance of an alleged oral agreement between R.A. and their mother to leave the land to the children.
- The homestead originated with Burton Pickens (R.A.’s father), whose will devised the property to his wife, Ollye, for life, then to R.A. “and unto the heirs of his body in fee simple forever,” with a gift over to a trust if R.A. died without surviving bodily heirs.
- After Burton’s death, Ollye renounced the will and elected her statutory share rather than taking the life estate devised to her.
- The children claimed Burton’s will gave R.A. only a life estate, leaving them as remaindermen as R.A.’s bodily heirs; the defendants contended R.A. took a fee simple interest.
- The children also alleged Carol, and two related parties (Freddie Black and Laurie Black), committed criminal neglect during the last roughly thirty hours of R.A.’s life and therefore should be barred from taking under the will.
- The chancery court granted partial summary judgment for Freddie and Laurie on the neglect claim for lack of evidence; the neglect claim against Carol proceeded to trial.
- After trial, the chancery court dismissed the complaint on all counts, finding R.A. owned the homestead in fee simple, no enforceable oral contract existed, and Carol was not culpable of criminal neglect.

## Issues

1. Whether Burton Pickens’s will, as affected by Ollye’s renunciation, vested R.A. Pickens with fee simple title to the homestead or only a life estate with a remainder in his bodily heirs.
2. Whether the children proved an oral contract between R.A. and his first wife to devise the homestead/land to the children, warranting specific performance.
3. Whether Carol, Freddie, or Laurie committed criminal neglect sufficient to bar them from inheriting from R.A.
4. Whether the chancery court’s factual findings and legal conclusions were clearly erroneous.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court’s judgment in all respects.
- The court held that, as construed under Arkansas law favoring early vesting, Burton’s will vested the remainder in R.A. in fee simple upon Ollye’s renunciation; the children were not remaindermen.
- The court held the evidence did not meet the heightened standard required to enforce an oral contract to devise land; no enforceable agreement was established.
- The court upheld partial summary judgment for Freddie and Laurie because the record contained no evidence supporting culpable neglect by them.
- The court upheld the trial finding that Carol was not criminally culpable for neglect; the evidence supported that she sought medical input and took reasonable steps during R.A.’s final hours.

## Legal Principles

- Will construction in Arkansas favors early vesting of estates; where reasonably possible, testamentary language is construed to avoid contingent remainders and fragmented interests absent a clear contrary intent.
- A party seeking specific performance of an oral contract to devise or convey real property must prove the agreement by clear, cogent, satisfactory, and convincing evidence.
- Summary judgment is proper when the nonmovant fails to produce evidence creating a genuine issue on an essential element, including alleged wrongful conduct used to support forfeiture of inheritance.
- In equity appeals, review is de novo, but the appellate court will not reverse factual findings unless clearly against the preponderance of the evidence; credibility determinations by the chancellor receive deference.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal of the children’s claims, concluding R.A. Pickens held the homestead in fee simple and could devise it to his widow, the alleged oral contract to leave the property to the children was not proved to the required standard, and the evidence did not establish criminal neglect that would bar any defendant from inheriting.


Pickens v. Black, 885 S.W.2d 872 (Ark. 1994)