Smith v. Smith
241 S.W.2d 113 (1951)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A life tenant commits permissive waste by failing to make ordinary repairs necessary to protect a building from the elements, and while a remainderman cannot seek forfeiture of the life estate for such waste in the absence of a specific statute, they may pursue other equitable remedies such as a receivership or partition.
Facts:
- Dollie Smith died, leaving a will concerning her home in Blytheville.
- The will gave the home to her daughter, Lorene Smith, "to be used by her as a home as long as she wishes."
- The will stipulated that if Lorene decided to sell the house, the proceeds were to be divided equally between Lorene and her brother, Floyd Smith.
- After Dollie Smith's death, Lorene Smith occupied the home.
- The house began to deteriorate, developing a leaking roof and rotten flooring.
- Lorene Smith refused to make any repairs to the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Floyd Smith filed a complaint in equity against his sister, Lorene Smith, in the state trial court (chancery court).
- The complaint alleged waste and sought forfeiture of the life estate, appointment of a receiver, and partition of the property.
- Lorene Smith filed a demurrer to the complaint, arguing it failed to state a valid claim for which relief could be granted.
- The chancellor sustained the demurrer and dismissed the suit after Floyd Smith declined to amend his complaint.
- Floyd Smith, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
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 complaint state a valid cause of action for waste when it alleges that a life tenant, who holds the property under a will, is allowing the property to deteriorate by failing to make ordinary repairs, such as fixing a leaking roof?
Opinions:
Majority - George Rose Smith, J.
Yes, the complaint states a valid cause of action for waste. The will created a life estate for Lorene Smith, not a fee simple, because the language specifying its use as a home and the provision for dividing sale proceeds would be unnecessary if a fee simple were intended. The complaint sufficiently alleges permissive waste by stating that the life tenant's failure to repair a leaking roof has caused the floors to rot; a life tenant has a duty to make ordinary repairs to protect the property from the elements. While the requested remedy of forfeiture is unavailable because the English Statute of Gloucester was not adopted as common law in Arkansas, the complaint is still valid because other remedies, such as the appointment of a receiver or partition, are available to a remainderman.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies two key aspects of Arkansas property law. First, it reinforces the principle that a will's specific language regarding property use or sale can rebut the presumption of a fee simple, creating a life estate instead. Second, and more significantly, the case definitively establishes that the ancient and harsh remedy of forfeiture for waste, derived from the 1278 Statute of Gloucester, is not part of Arkansas common law. This aligns the state with the modern American view that, while remaindermen are entitled to protection from waste through remedies like receivership, forfeiture is an extreme measure only available if explicitly authorized by a modern statute.
Unlock the full brief for Smith v. Smith