Ark. Code Ann. § 28-26-103 (2020)
Partial intestacy
If part but not all of the estate of a decedent is validly disposed of by will, the part not disposed of by will shall be distributed as provided by law with respect to the estates of intestates.
History. Acts 1949, No. 140, § 27; A.S.A. 1947, § 60-411.
Research References
Ark. L. Rev.
The Doctrine of Worthier Title in Arkansas, 21 Ark. L. Rev. 394.
Case Notes
Exclusionary Clause.
An exclusionary clause in a will lacking a residuary clause does not control intestate property held by the testatrix. Cook v. Estate of Seeman, 314 Ark. 1, 858 S.W.2d 114 (1993).
Because intestate property passes by law rather than by will, the statute and not the testator controls the distribution of intestate property; therefore, although the testator's intent to disinherit is clearly and unambiguously expressed in a will, such exclusionary language will not be given effect as against the distribution of intestate property. Cook v. Estate of Seeman, 314 Ark. 1, 858 S.W.2d 114 (1993).
Despite the fact that several beneficiaries were explicitly disinherited by the provisions of a will, the residue of the estate was distributed according to the rules of intestate succession because the residuary clause was ineffective; the presumption against partial intestacy was subordinate to the presumption against disherison. Harrison v. Harrison, 82 Ark. App. 521, 120 S.W.3d 144 (2003).
Properties Not Devised.
Where testator's will consisted of six separate sheets of holographic writings, five of which made specific devises to named relatives, while on the sixth sheet he devised to his nieces and nephews not otherwise named “all the rest of my property” and then without punctuation described thereon specific property and “rest of money after funeral expenses,” the sixth sheet did not constitute a devise of after-acquired properties and testator died intestate as to such after-acquired properties. Bradshaw v. Pennington, 225 Ark. 410, 283 S.W.2d 351 (1955).
Residuary bequest to the decedent's stepchildren in the decedent's last will and testament was voided because the decedent's spouse, who was removed from the will pursuant to an antenuptial agreement, did not predecease the decedent by 30 days so that the condition precedent in the will that would have allowed the stepchildren to inherit under the terms of the will was not met. Further, the circuit court's determination that the antenuptial agreement did not cancel the entirety of the decedent's will was not clearly erroneous. Craig v. Craig, 2018 Ark. App. 489, 563 S.W.3d 560 (2018).