Michael Sanders and Mitchell Sanders v. Susan Sanders, Individually and as Trustee of the Emmett Earlton Sanders, Jr., and Susan Carver Sanders Joint Revocable Trust, Dated October 1, 2002; And Patrick McDaniel, as Administrator of the Estate of Emmett Earlton Sanders, Jr.

── Michael Sanders and Mitchell Sanders v. Susan Sanders, Individually and as Trustee of the Emmett Earlton Sanders, Jr., and Susan Carver Sanders Joint Revocable Trust, Dated October 1, 2002; And Patrick McDaniel, as Administrator of the Estate of Emmett Earlton Sanders, Jr. ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 270 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-25-56 Opinion Delivered April 29, 2026 MICHAEL SANDERS AND MITCHELL SANDERS APPEAL FROM THE MADISON APPELLANTS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 44CV-21-124] V. HONORABLE DOUG MARTIN, SUSAN SANDERS, INDIVIDUALLY AND JUDGE AS TRUSTEE OF THE EMMETT EARLTON SANDERS, JR., AND SUSAN REVERSED AND REMANDED CARVER SANDERS JOINT REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED OCTOBER 1, 2002; AND PATRICK MCDANIEL, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF EMMETT EARLTON SANDERS, JR. APPELLEES MIKE MURPHY, Judge Appellants Michael Sanders and Mitchell Sanders appeal the decision of the Madison County Circuit Court granting appellee Susan Sanders’s motion for summary judgment and denying their partial motion for summary judgment. We reverse and remand. Michael and Mitchell are twin brothers and the sons of the late Emmett Earlton Sanders (Earlton), who passed away on December 11, 2020. Earlton was married to appellee Susan Sanders at the time of his death. Before his marriage to Susan, Earlton was married to Beatrice Sanders, the appellants’ mother. Beatrice and Earlton had divorced in 2001.  As part of their divorce, Beatrice and Earlton executed a property settlement agreement (PSA). In that agreement, Earlton agreed that he would “execute a last will and testament or similar estate planning device whereby the parties’ sons, Michael and Mitchell, will be entitled to inherit the first Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) from the husband’s estate at the time of his death.” The contract further provided that Earlton would “not make gifts to third parties for the purpose of reducing the value of his estate to avoid any part of this obligation.” Earlton married Susan in July 2002; they had no children together. When Earlton died in 2020, all property in which he held an interest passed outside of probate. During his lifetime, Earlton never made any sort of will or estate-planning device pursuant to the PSA that satisfied his obligation in favor of his sons. On December 10, 2021, Michael and Mitchell brought this suit against Susan individually and as trustee of the joint trust she held with Earlton and against Patrick McDaniel as the administrator of Earlton’s probate estate. The sons claimed breach of contract for $200,000 from their father’s estate on the basis of the PSA from the divorce with their mother. They alleged that “[d]uring his life and while married to Susan, Earlton transferred properties with current value in excess of $400,000 to Susan and the Sanders Revocable Trust.” The complaint went on to explain that as a result of Earlton’s failure to comply with the terms of the PSA, property in excess of $200,000 that should have gone to Michael and Mitchell is currently in Susan’s possession. They requested specific performance and sought a constructive trust over property that was not in the estate but held by Susan either individually or as trustee. 2  The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. Susan, on behalf of herself individually and as trustee of the Emmett Earlton Sanders, Jr., and Susan Carver Sanders joint revocable trust dated October 1, 2002, argued in relevant part that the complaint should be dismissed because (1) she is an improper defendant in the breach-of- contract action; the contract was between Earlton and Beatrice, and the plaintiffs therefore lacked standing to assert a claim against her, and (2) Earlton had no individually held assets at the time of his death. The appellants argued in