## Facts

- W. T. Wood died intestate in 1912 owning 140 acres, including an 80-acre family homestead.
- He left a widow and nine children.
- The widow remained on the homestead with minor children until 1925.
- In 1925, after a serious conflict with one son (an heir), the widow left the homestead and lived with relatives, claiming she left out of fear for her safety rather than to relinquish rights.
- After the widow left, the son stayed in possession, used the land, collected rents and profits, and cut and sold timber.
- The son also acquired interests of some siblings and claimed ownership through those purchases and through long exclusive possession.
- The widow sued in chancery seeking possession based on continuing homestead and unassigned dower rights, an accounting for rents and profits, and the value of timber removed.
- The chancery court ruled for the widow, rejecting abandonment, limitations, and adverse-possession defenses, and awarding possession and timber value.

## Issues

1. Whether the widow’s 1925 departure from the homestead was a voluntary abandonment that forfeited her homestead rights.
2. Whether the statute of limitations barred the widow’s suit given her long absence and the heir’s extended possession, where dower had not been assigned.
3. Whether the heir established adverse possession against the widow’s homestead/unassigned dower interest and, if not, whether he must account for rents, profits, and timber proceeds.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the chancery decree for the widow.
- The court held the widow did not abandon the homestead because her absence was not voluntary.
- The court held limitations did not bar the claim because the heirs had a duty to assign dower, and that duty had not been performed.
- The court rejected adverse possession because the heir’s possession could not ripen into title against the widow’s continuing homestead/dower interest.
- The court upheld the award requiring the heir to account for rents and profits and to pay the value of timber cut and sold without the widow’s consent.

## Legal Principles

- Homestead abandonment requires voluntary relinquishment and intent to give up the protected interest; absence compelled by threats or fear does not constitute abandonment.
- When a widow’s dower remains unassigned, heirs’ possession is treated as subordinate to the widow’s rights, limiting reliance on statutes of limitation to defeat those rights.
- Adverse possession against a widow’s continuing homestead/unassigned dower interest is not established where the widow’s interest has not been lawfully terminated.
- A possessor who exploits the property (including timber removal) without authority as against the homestead/dower holder may be required to account for rents, profits, and proceeds.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the widow’s continued homestead and unassigned dower rights, ruling that her coerced departure was not abandonment, that heirs could not invoke limitations while failing to assign dower, and that the heir in possession could not acquire title by adverse possession and had to account for timber and income from the land.


Wood v. Wood, 157 S.W.2d 36 (Ark. 1941)