Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Frank Donald Clark had three children, Frank Michael Clark (Mike), Vera Suzette Murray (Suzette), and Kimberly Clark. Kimberly began living with her father at his house in Palestine on Feb. 1, 2003, in order to care for him. After his death on May 7, 2005, a court admitted to probate his will, in which he left his estate in equal shares to his children. The court appointed and qualified Mike as independent executor. A week after their father’s death, Mike and Suzette met with Kimberly to begin discussing the division of the estate. Kimberly insisted that she would continue to live in the house. Mike and Suzette said that it would be sold. Relations between Kimberly and her siblings continued to deteriorate throughout the summer. She obstructed their attempts to market the house for sale. Eventually, after her siblings filed a forcible entry and detainer action to remove her, she vacated the house on or about July 29, 2005. Four days before vacating the house, Kimberly filed a claim against the estate for reimbursement of $25,347.80 for improvements she had made to the house. Mike and Suzette held an estate sale at the house from Aug. 4 to Aug. 7, 2005 during which they sold only part of the estate’s personal property. Mike and Suzette distributed personal property not sold during the estate sale among Suzette, Mike and Suzette’s three daughters Lisa, Lori and Lynn. Mike and Suzette later sold the house for $90,000. In October 2005, Kimberly filed a motion for an inventory, accounting and distribution. Mike filed an inventory, appraisal and list of claims to which Kimberly immediately objected. On Feb. 21, 2006, the trial court held a hearing on Kimberly’s motion, Mike’s inventory and Kimberly’s reimbursement claim. The trial court then issued an order allowing Kimberly reimbursement in the amount of $14,800. The court also ordered Mike to collect all of the personal property items that had been distributed to Mike, Suzette and Suzette’s three daughters. The court instructed Mike, Suzette and Kimberly to value each item. The three separate values for each item were to be averaged together to determine the value placed on each item. The three siblings would then select the items in an order determined randomly until they distributed all of the personal property in kind among the three. Kimberly timely filed an appeal of the trial court’s final order. She did not request the trial court to enter findings of fact or conclusions of law. HOLDING:Affirmed. When findings of fact are neither filed nor requested following a bench trial, an implication arises that the trial court made all findings necessary to support the judgment, provided that: 1. the pleadings raise and the evidence supports the necessary findings and 2. any reasonable theory consistent with the evidence and applicable law can sustain the decision. The court stated it could set aside the judgment only if it was so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that it was clearly wrong and unjust. Kimberly contended that insufficient evidence supported the trial court’s reduction of her reimbursement claim for enhancing the value of the house. To determine the amount of her award, the trial court considered the sales price of the home, the costs to sell it and the value of certain items of personal property that were missing from the estate. Specifically, the court determined that Kimberly’s portion of the expenses for the sale of the house was $4,420.00. The trial court further reduced Kimberly’s reimbursement claim to $14,580 when it determined that Kimberly had retained personal property items of the estate worth $6,000. Kimberly argued that the trial court’s method of determining the amount of her award was improper, because there was no direct evidence showing that she possessed of the $6,000 in personal property items. The court, however, stated that sufficient circumstantial evidence supported the trial court’s findings. Thus, the court found that the trial court did not err by reducing Kimberly’s reimbursement claim to $14,580. Next, Kimberly contended that the trial court failed to provide for an equitable distribution of the estate assets. Kimberly argued that the court erred when it ordered that Mike recollect the assets distributed to Mike, Suzette and Suzette’s three daughters and redistribute them among Kimberly, Mike and Suzette. Instead, Kimberly contends that the trial court should have held Mike and Suzette personally liable for conversion and waste of the distributed assets as well as other estate assets for which Mike did not account. The trial court, the court stated, has a duty to order the independent executor to distribute the property according to the terms of the will. Furthermore, the court stated, a court has the inherent power to order the surrender to the estate of the property held by any party. This inherent power enables the court to preserve its own ability to render effective relief and give effect to its orders. In this case, the court found that trial court had authority to require Mike to redistribute the estate’s assets as specified in the decedent’s will. The court disagreed with Kimberly’s assertion that the trial court should have entered a judgment holding Mike and Suzette personally liable for the conversion and waste of estate assets. At the time of the Feb. 21, 2006, hearing, there was no pleading before the court seeking such relief, the court stated. A party may not be granted relief in the absence of pleadings and evidence to support that relief, the court stated. The court held that Kimberly’s motion for an inventory, accounting and distribution, and her objection to Mike’s inventory, appraisement and list of claims were insufficient to support the relief Kimberly requested in her appeal. OPINION:Worthen, C.J.; Worthen, C.J., and Griffith and Hoyle, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.