Hamilton v. Hamilton
317 Ark. 572, 879 S.W.2d 416, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 419 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's elective share statute, which provides a surviving spouse with certain inheritance rights, does not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process clauses, even when the spouses were separated and a divorce was pending at the time of death. The state has a rational basis for distinguishing between surviving spouses and divorced spouses, as the policy goals for property distribution in each scenario are different.
Facts:
- Barrett Hamilton and Virginia D. Hamilton married in 1981.
- The couple separated in May 1990.
- Barrett Hamilton filed for an absolute divorce on August 17, 1990.
- Barrett Hamilton created a will that bequeathed to Virginia Hamilton her dower interest under Arkansas law, as long as she remained his lawful wife.
- The will's residuary clause left the remainder of the estate to his two adult daughters from a previous marriage, Melinda R. Hamilton and Marón M. Hamilton.
- Barrett Hamilton died on January 22, 1992, while the divorce proceeding was still pending.
Procedural Posture:
- Virginia Hamilton filed an election in probate court to take her share against her deceased husband's will under Ark. Code Ann. § 28-39-401.
- Melinda and Marón Hamilton, the deceased's daughters, filed a motion in the probate court to declare the elective share statute unconstitutional.
- The probate court found the statute constitutional and ruled that Virginia Hamilton was entitled to take against the will.
- Melinda and Marón Hamilton, as appellants, appealed the probate court's decision to the Arkansas Supreme Court, with Virginia Hamilton as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an Arkansas statute that allows a surviving spouse to take an elective share against a deceased spouse's will violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. and Arkansas Constitutions by treating surviving spouses differently than divorced spouses, particularly when a divorce action was pending at the time of the testator's death?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Robert L. Brown
No, the Arkansas elective share statute does not violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. The court reasoned that there is a rational basis for the legislature to treat surviving spouses and divorced spouses differently. The policy behind property division in a divorce is to dissolve a marriage contract, whereas the policy behind the elective share statute is to protect a surviving spouse and prevent injustice when a marriage endures until death. Because Barrett Hamilton's death terminated the pending divorce action, the parties were still legally married at the time of his death, making his widow's election appropriate. The court also rejected the Due Process takings claim, holding that the state's legitimate interest in protecting the surviving spouse justifies any diminishment of the beneficiaries' inheritance.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the strong public policy of protecting surviving spouses through elective share statutes, even when the marital relationship was factually breaking down. It establishes that a pending divorce does not alter a spouse's legal status for inheritance purposes; death legally terminates the divorce proceeding, cementing the surviving spouse's statutory rights. The ruling reinforces the high deference given to legislatures under the rational basis test for economic classifications, making it difficult to challenge such statutes on equal protection grounds. This case serves as a clear precedent that the distinct legal frameworks for divorce and death will be respected, and one cannot be used to challenge the other.
