Legal Opinion · Dissent

Acklin v. Riddell

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided June 30, 1993No. CA 92-867Published

1DissentJohn Mauzy Pittman, Judge

I respectfully dissent. I think that, on the facts of this case, the probate court should have considered the proffered extrinsic evidence in order to determine the true intent of the decedent regarding the disposition of his life insurance proceeds.

The decedent executed his will in his attorney’s office in Benton on March 25, 1988. The will clearly provided that the proceeds from the decedent’s life insurance policies first be used to pay certain expenses and that the remainder then be divided equally between his wife (appellee) and his three children from a former marriage (appellants).…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lindell Square Ltd. Partnership v. Savers Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1989
  2. Integon Life Insurance v. VandegriftCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API