Ashley v. J.D. Ashley Sr. FLP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 473
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CA09-1073
Opinion Delivered
J.D. ASHLEY, SR., BY AND
THROUGH CHAROLETTE ASHLEY
AS HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
APPELLANTS
V.
THE J.D. ASHLEY, SR. FAMILY
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, RICHARD
H. ASHLEY, AND J.D. ASHLEY, JR.
APPELLEES
June 2, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NINTH DIVISION [CV-2008-14052]
HONORABLE MARY MCGOWAN,
JUDGE
DISMISSED
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge
In this action for accounting, appellees, the J.D. Ashley, Sr., Family Limited
Partnership (the FLP),1 Richard Ashley, and J.D. Ashley, Jr., were granted summary judgment
and appellant, Charolette Ashley, was held in contempt of court. Charolette appeals from
both orders. Charolette is the second wife of J.D. Ashley, Sr. Acting pursuant to an
instrument entitled “Durable Special Power of Attorney for Health Care and Other Matters”
naming her his attorney-in-fact, she sued appellees for an accounting of Ashley Sr.’s
The J.D. Ashley, Sr., Family Limited Partnership consisted of J.D. Ashley, Sr., and
his four children from his first marriage—Richard H. Ashley, J.D. Ashley, Jr., Melody P.
Ashley and Todd H. Ashley. While all were limited partners, J.D. Ashley, Sr., and
appellees Richard Ashley and J.D. Ashley, Jr., were also general partners in the family
limited partnership.
1
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 473
ownership interest in the FLP, alleging that appellees had committed constructive fraud and
converted partnership funds.
The trial court granted appellees’ motion for summary
judgment, finding that Charolette had no standing to sue for an accounting of business
matters. The trial court further found that Charolette was in contempt for failure to follow
the trial court’s order of March 5, 2009, to make Ashley, Sr. available for a competency exam.
Charolette now challenges these determinations on appeal. We dismiss this appeal for the
reasons discussed herein.
Charolette’s initial brief was filed in December 2009, and both appellees’ brief and
Charolette’s reply brief were filed in February 2010. On March 10, 2010, appellees filed a
“Notice of the Fact of Death,” stating that J.D. Ashley, Sr. had passed away on March 3,
2010. In response to that notice, Charolette’s attorney admitted that Ashley, Sr. had passed
away, stating that the causes of action were now the property of the Estate of J.D. Ashley, Sr.,
but that a personal representative of the estate had not yet been appointed. The above notice
and response are pivotal to our disposition of this appeal.
Charolette held a power of attorney for health care and personal matters for Ashley,
Sr. It was under this authority that she brought her lawsuit against the FLP and two of her
stepsons. However, Charolette’s authority under the power of attorney ended at her
husband’s death. “Any authority to act granted by the power-of-attorney terminated at death.
The power of agency ends with death of the principal.” Arkansas Bd. of Embalmers & Funeral
Dirs. v. Reddick, 366 Ark. 89, 94, 233 S.W.3d 639, 643 (2006).
-2-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 473
Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-67-322(a) (Repl. 2005) provides that if all
appellants die after the appeal is taken but before judgment is rendered, “the executor or
administrator of the last surviving appellant or plaintiff, or the heirs or devisees of the appellant
or plaintiff in cases where they would be entitled to bring writs of error or prosecute an
appeal, may be substituted for the appellant or plaintiff and the cause shall proceed at their
suit.” Charolette’s response admits this was not yet done. Arkansas Code Annotated section
28-48-103 (Repl. 2004) also provides that, for good cause, a special administrator may be
appointed pending appointment of an executor or a general administrator to perform duties
respecting specific property or to perform particular acts. However, again, as noted in
Charolette’s response, an executor, administrator, or a special administrator had not been
appointed for the estate at the time of the submission of this case.
We find that Charolette’s authority to act under the power of attorney given to her
by her late husband terminated at his death and that no personal representative or executor
of the estate has been named and no special administrator has been appointed. Therefore,
there is no party in interest left to prosecute this appeal, and it must be dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
PITTMAN and GLADWIN, JJ., agree.
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.