The administration of the estate of a decedent from the filing of the petition for probate and administration or for administration until the order of final distribution and the discharge of the last personal representative shall be considered as one (1) proceeding for purposes of jurisdiction.
The entire proceeding is a proceeding in rem.
No notice shall be jurisdictional except as provided in §§ 28-40-110 and 28-53-103.
If the probate court grants letters of administration instead of letters testamentary, the error should be corrected on appeal. The letters will not be void until reversed. Jackson v. Reeve, 44 Ark. 496 (1884) (decision under prior law).
Failure to Notify Spouse.
The notice by a probate clerk to a surviving spouse to elect to take against a will is not jurisdictional, and therefore the failure to notify will not give her heirs her personal right to take against the will. Jeffcoat v. Harper, 224 Ark. 778, 276 S.W.2d 429 (1955).
Necessity for Administration.
The adjudication by the probate court of the necessity for administration is conclusive in a collateral issue. Stewart v. Smiley, 46 Ark. 373 (1885); Sharp v. Himes, 129 Ark. 327, 196 S.W. 131 (1917) (decisions under prior law).
The appointment by the probate court of an administrator is conclusive of the question of necessity for administration, but it is not conclusive of the question whether or not the lands of the estate are needed to pay debts. Turley v. Gorman, 133 Ark. 473, 202 S.W. 822 (1918) (decision under prior law).
Cited:
Brickey v. Lacy, 247 Ark. 906, 448 S.W.2d 331 (1969); Brown v. Kennedy Well Works, Inc., 302 Ark. 213, 788 S.W.2d 948 (1990); Schieffler v. Pulaski Bank & Trust Co. (In re Molitor), 183 B.R. 547 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1995); Wilson v. Wilson, 327 Ark. 386, 939 S.W.2d 287 (1997); Ferguson v. Ferguson, 2009 Ark. App. 549, 334 S.W.3d 425 (2009).
Brown v. Kennedy Well Works, Inc., 788 S.W.2d 948 (Ark. 1990). · cites it 2דSee Ark. Code Ann. § 28-40-101 (1987). Thus, the chancery court’s refusal to set aside the probate court’s finding that the promissory note was evidence of an estate debt was a correct ruling.”
Ferguson v. Ferguson, 334 S.W.3d 425 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2דArk.Code Ann. § 28-40-101 (a) (Repl.2004).”
Wilson v. Wilson, 939 S.W.2d 287 (Ark. 1997). · cites it 2דIn probating Christopher’s will, the probate judge entered an order approving the final account and distribution of assets, which states in relevant part: That the petitioner, was duly appointed personal representative of the estate of the deceased on the 10th day of August,…”
Atkinson v. Knowles, 105 S.W.3d 818 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). “(b) Except as provided in § 28-40-101, to be effective to prove the transfer of any property or to nominate an executor, a will must be declared to be valid by an order of probate by the probate court, except that a duly executed and unrevoked will which has not been probated…”
Est. of Miller v. Miller, 51 F. Supp. 3d 861 (E.D. Ark. 2014). · cites it 2ד“The administration of the estate of a decedent from the filing of the petition for probate and administration or for administration until the order of final distribution and the discharge of the last personal representative shall be considered as one (1) proceeding for purposes…”
Hatfield v. Tony Pirani (W.D. Ark. 2024). “§§ 28-40-101 to 28-40-123) demonstrates similar solicitude for the right to a jury trial in related proceedings.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 28-40-101(a): 1 case
Est. of Miller v. Miller, 51 F. Supp. 3d 861 (E.D. Ark. 2014). ““The administration of the estate of a decedent from the filing of the petition for probate and administration or for administration until the order of final distribution and the discharge of the last personal representative shall be considered as one (1) proceeding for purposes…”
Est. of Miller v. Miller, 51 F. Supp. 3d 861 (E.D. Ark. 2014). ““The administration of the estate of a decedent from the filing of the petition for probate and administration or for administration until the order of final distribution and the discharge of the last personal representative shall be considered as one (1) proceeding for purposes…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.