Nunnenman v. Estate of Grubbs
374 S.W.3d 75 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Arkansas law, to change a designated beneficiary of an IRA through an instrument other than the method prescribed by the custodian, the instrument must either be a will that sufficiently identifies the policy and shows intent to change the beneficiary, or the proponent must prove the decedent did everything reasonably possible to effectuate the change.
Facts:
- In 2003, Donald Grubbs opened an individual retirement account (IRA) and designated Nunnenman as the sole beneficiary upon his death.
- In May 2005, Grubbs was hospitalized.
- On June 3, 2005, while hospitalized, Grubbs executed a formal last will and testament prepared by an attorney.
- The will bequeathed his entire estate to his mother, Shervena Grubbs, but did not specifically mention the IRA account.
- Donald Grubbs died on June 9, 2005.
- Months after his death, Shervena Grubbs claimed she found a handwritten note in the decedent's Bible.
- The note, dated May 2005, stated that Donald Grubbs wanted his IRA and all other assets to go to his mother, Shervena Grubbs.
Procedural Posture:
- Shervena Grubbs, as executrix of the estate of Donald Grubbs, filed an action in an Arkansas trial court for an injunction to freeze the assets of the decedent's IRA.
- The trial court found in favor of Shervena Grubbs, ruling that a handwritten note had changed the IRA beneficiary to her and awarded her the account.
- Nunnenman, the originally named beneficiary and appellant in this action, appealed the trial court's decision to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
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 a handwritten note, found after the decedent's death, effectively change the beneficiary of an IRA account when the decedent's formal will does not mention the account and the decedent did not follow the custodian's prescribed method for changing the beneficiary?
Opinions:
Majority - Pittman, J.
No. A handwritten note found after death does not effectively change the beneficiary of an IRA where the decedent did not take all reasonable steps to comply with the custodian's procedures. While Arkansas law permits a change of beneficiary via a will, the will must specifically identify the account and show a clear intent to change the beneficiary, which the formal will in this case did not do. If the handwritten note is considered a holographic will, it was revoked by the later, formal will. If it is not considered a will, it fails because the proponent did not prove the decedent did everything reasonably possible to effectuate the change; the decedent was capable of summoning an attorney to execute a formal will but made no similar effort to contact the IRA custodian to change the beneficiary designation as required by the IRA agreement.
Dissenting - Hart, J.
Yes. The trial court's finding that the handwritten note effectively changed the beneficiary should be affirmed. The majority improperly crafts a new argument for the appellant and substitutes its own judgment for the trial court's on factual matters, such as the authenticity of the note. The note should have been considered valid parol evidence of the decedent's donative intent, as permitted by precedent like Hall v. Superior Federal Bank. The majority's reliance on law governing life insurance policies is misplaced, and an appellate court should not re-weigh evidence or credibility findings properly made by the trial court.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle of substantial compliance and the general sanctity of beneficiary designations on non-probate assets like IRAs. By analogizing IRAs to insurance policies, the court clarifies that while Arkansas's exception allowing a change by will is broader than in most states, this flexibility is not limitless. The ruling establishes that a party seeking to enforce an informal, non-will writing to change a beneficiary faces a high burden: proving the decedent did everything reasonably possible to make the change formally. This precedent protects the certainty of financial agreements and discourages post-mortem claims based on ambiguous or uncommunicated writings, thereby promoting adherence to contractually specified procedures.
Unlock the full brief for Nunnenman v. Estate of Grubbs