Cite as 2010 Ark. 399 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 09-1333 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Opinion Delivered October 28, 2010 APPELLANT, APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI VS. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. CN1993-4743, CHARLES A. BROWN, ROY LYNDELL HON. VANN SMITH, JUDGE, SHARPE TESTAMENTARY TRUST and ROY LYNDELL SHARPE INTER VIVOS TRUST, REMANDED. APPELLEES, JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice Appellant Bank of America, N.A., appeals an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court granting appellee Charles A. Brown’s petition for an order to change trustees. Two trusts are at issue in this case, the Living Trust and the Testamentary Trust. The Living Trust provides, in relevant part: “[B]ut if some unforeseeable event forecloses the Worthen Bank and Trust Company, N.A. from administering this Trust, and such event occurs in the lifetime of my attorney, Charles A. Brown, then my attorney shall select the trust institution to continue to administer this Trust as Trustee.” The Testamentary Trust provides, in relevant part: “[I]f because of any unforeseen event Worthen Bank and Trust Company, N.A., cannot administer this trust from its Trust Department within the boundaries of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, then my attorney . . . shall select the trust institution to continue to administer this
Cite as 2010 Ark. 399 Trust as Trustee.” (Emphasis added.) In February 2009, appellee Brown received notice that the trusts would be administered by Bank of America (formerly Worthen) employees in Dallas, Texas. Thereafter, Brown filed a petition for change of trustees for both trusts, and the circuit court granted the petition. One of Bank of America’s points on appeal is the contention that the circuit court erred in applying the Testamentary Trust’s geographical limitation to the Living Trust because the Living Trust contains no geographical limitation. Upon review of the circuit court’s order, we are unable to discern whether the order granting the petition to change trustees applies to both the Testamentary Trust and the Living Trust. 1 Accordingly, we remand to the circuit court to clarify its ruling. Remanded. 1 After the circuit court entered its order, Bank of America filed a motion for new trial, and among its arguments was a request for clarification regarding whether the order granting the petition applied to both the Living Trust and the Testamentary Trust. Bank of America then asserted that, to the extent that the circuit court had applied the geographical limitation to both trusts, that ruling was “clearly contrary to the preponderance of the facts and is contrary to the law.” The circuit court denied the motion for new trial and did not address Bank of America’s request for clarification. -2-
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.