Cathee Crain, as settlor/beneficiary of the Cathee Crain First Amended Trust; Kristan Crain Snell, as settlor/benficiary of the Kristan D. Crain First Amended Trust; Lisa Crain, as settlor/beneficiary of the Lisa Crain First Amended Trust; And Marillyn Crain Brody, as settlor/beneficiary of the Marillyn C. Crain First Amended Trust v. Shirley Crain, Individually and as Trustee of the Terminated Cathee Crain First Amended Trust, Trustee of the Lisa Crain First Amended Trust, Trustee of the Kristan Crain First Amended Trust, and Trustee of the Marillyn C. Crain First Amended Trust

── Cathee Crain, as settlor/beneficiary of the Cathee Crain First Amended Trust; Kristan Crain Snell, as settlor/benficiary of the Kristan D. Crain First Amended Trust; Lisa Crain, as settlor/beneficiary of the Lisa Crain First Amended Trust; And Marillyn Crain Brody, as settlor/beneficiary of the Marillyn C. Crain First Amended Trust v. Shirley Crain, Individually and as Trustee of the Terminated Cathee Crain First Amended Trust, Trustee of the Lisa Crain First Amended Trust, Trustee of the Kristan Crain First Amended Trust, and Trustee of the Marillyn C. Crain First Amended Trust ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 274 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-25-135 CATHEE CRAIN, AS Opinion Delivered May 6, 2026 SETTLOR/BENEFICIARY OF THE CATHEE CRAIN FIRST AMENDED APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN TRUST; KRISTAN CRAIN SNELL, AS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT SETTLOR/BENFICIARY OF THE SMITH DISTRICT KRISTAN D. CRAIN FIRST AMENDED [NO. 66FCV-24-532] TRUST; LISA CRAIN, AS SETTLOR/BENEFICIARY OF THE HONORABLE DIANNA HEWITT LISA CRAIN FIRST AMENDED TRUST; LADD, JUDGE AND MARILLYN CRAIN BRODY, AS SETTLOR/BENEFICIARY OF THE MARILLYN C. CRAIN FIRST AMENDED TRUST APPELLANTS V. SHIRLEY CRAIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE TERMINATED CATHEE CRAIN FIRST AMENDED TRUST, TRUSTEE OF THE LISA CRAIN FIRST AMENDED TRUST, TRUSTEE OF THE KRISTAN CRAIN FIRST AMENDED TRUST, AND TRUSTEE OF THE MARILLYN C. CRAIN FIRST AMENDED TRUST APPELLEE AFFIRMED N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge Appellants are the adult daughters of Dude Crain and stepdaughters of appellee, Shirley Crain. This appeal centers on the dismissal of the daughters’ 2024 complaint against Shirley in which they alleged Shirley failed in her duties as trustee of their trusts to collect delinquent debt Dude owed to the trusts. The circuit court dismissed the complaint because the statute of limitations (SOL) on any action to collect had long since expired, the daughters failed to present evidence to support tolling of the SOL, and the Arkansas Trust Code did not apply to allow them an extended SOL under the Code. The daughters appeal, and we affirm. As a preliminary matter, while the parties treat this as an appeal from an order granting a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, the proper standard of review of the circuit court’s order is that of a motion for summary judgment. Rule 12(b)(8) states: If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56. The daughters attached approximately one hundred pages of exhibits to their complaint.1 The parties referred to these documents in their arguments about whether the complaint should be dismissed, and they were considered by the circuit court. Because the circuit court considered matters outside the pleadings, the motion to dismiss was converted to a motion 1 Exhibits A through W included each daughter’s trust, the amended trusts, the trustee appointments and changes thereto, IRS forms, a letter from a former cotrustee, a promissory installment note, a pledge agreement, and a 2020 order declaring the rights and obligations under the amended trusts as between Shirley and the daughters. 2 for summary judgment. Barrows/Thompson, LLC v. HB Ven II, LP, 2020 Ark. App. 208, 599 S.W.3d 637. The law is well settled that summary judgment is to be granted by a circuit court only when it is clear that there are no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated, and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Hardin v. Bishop, 2013 Ark. 395, 430 S.W.3d 49. When there is no material question of fact, we determine whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.