Buyer Promised Lifetime Care in Return for Their 107 Acres — Then a Jury Voided the Sale and the Widow Kept the Land

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT. Illustrative only.

Some deals sound almost too tidy: you get the land, I get to stay in my home, and somebody promises to take care of us until we die. That kind of arrangement can feel like a lifeline, especially when age and illness start tightening the circle. But once you read what happened in Chicot County, Arkansas, it’s hard not to think how quickly a “helping hand” can turn into leverage.

In a May 6, 2026 decision from the Arkansas Court of Appeals, the court reviewed a jury verdict that wiped out a real estate sale involving 107 acres, a home, and personal property—after the buyer was accused of fraud or breach of contract and the husband was found to lack capacity to enter the deal. The opinion lays it out in plain language, and you can read the source material for the full picture.

The short version is this: a buyer offered $500,000 for the Marshalls’ property and promised “lifetime” care and the right for them to live there until death. A jury later found the husband wasn’t competent to make the contract and that the buyer committed fraud or breached the agreement. The trial court voided the sale, and after the husband died, the court vested title entirely in the widow’s name.

A promise of care tied to 107 acres

According to the opinion, in January 2023 Jerry Poole approached Thomas and Lynn Marshall about buying their property for $500,000. The package wasn’t just land; it included 107 acres of real property plus furniture, fixtures, and farm equipment. There was also a $75,000 down payment offered up front.

The care component was central. The opinion says Poole represented they could live on the property until their deaths and that he would provide help, care, and maintenance “seven days a week and twenty-four hours a day.” A first addendum later spelled out that Poole would provide, at his own cost, “good quality in-home care and in-home healthcare” 24/7 for as long as they remained in the home.

The lawsuit: fraud, breach, and capacity

By September 2023, Hollie Ann Grice Arnold (individually and representing Thomas’s estate) and Lynn Marshall sued Poole for fraud and breach of contract. Their claim wasn’t subtle: they alleged Poole knew about their advanced ages and about Thomas’s dementia and used those realities to induce the sale with promises he never intended to keep.

They also alleged Poole wasn’t paying for their care the way the addendum required. Instead, they claimed he was using the installment payments connected to the sale to cover the limited caretaking that happened, rather than paying for it himself. They asked the court to void the deed, treat Poole’s money as rent for use and possession, and deny him recovery for “improvements” they described as damage.

The complaint also referenced an Adult Protective Services investigation by the Arkansas Department of Human Services. The opinion states APS “determined the allegations of financial exploitation, psychological abuse, and mental abuse were founded against Thomas.” Poole, in his response, denied most allegations but admitted Thomas had dementia.

What the jury heard about Thomas’s condition

A big piece of the case was whether Thomas Marshall had the mental capacity to enter into a contract in early 2023. Two medical providers testified for the plaintiffs, and their descriptions were not encouraging. Dr. Kenneth Stephens, a psychiatrist and lawyer, testified that Thomas would not have had capacity in February or March 2023 to enter into legal documents.

Thomas’s nurse practitioner, Clark Roberts, testified Thomas had been declining mentally for years. He said that in June 2022 Lynn took over finances because dementia affected Thomas’s ability to handle his affairs. Roberts also testified Thomas sometimes didn’t remember seeing him, and he opined Thomas wasn’t competent to execute legal documents for at least the last two years.

Other witnesses talked about what day-to-day life looked like in that home. A caregiver testified that the house was in disarray and unsafe, and she described hearing Lynn say she was afraid of Poole and locked her door at night. A housekeeper testified Poole told her to “keep them happy until closing” and said Poole did not provide 24-hour care and that the Marshalls were left alone at night.

Even the attorney who interacted with the Marshalls around that time testified that Thomas wasn’t “himself” and seemed “kind of like a zombie.” Looking back, the attorney said he didn’t believe Thomas understood what was going on.

What Poole said happened

Poole testified he knew Thomas had dementia. He said attorney Don Carroll prepared the purchase agreement and addenda, and that his own attorney prepared the note and mortgage. He maintained he upheld the agreement, but he acknowledged something important: he did not hold the deed “in trust” as the contract required, and instead the deed was filed with the county.

Poole also testified that after the documents were executed he began making monthly payments of $3,044 in his name for the Marshalls’ benefit at the Bank of Lake Village. He said he used that amount to pay the housekeeper, buy food, and pay caregivers. That detail mattered because the plaintiffs’ theory was that care costs were supposed to be paid by Poole separately, not funded through the payments tied to the property purchase.

On the DHS letter, Poole denied receiving it personally in the mail but said his attorney appealed the determination. When the plaintiffs moved to introduce the letter as an exhibit, Poole’s lawyer said he had no objection, and defense counsel questioned Poole about the investigation on cross-examination.

The jury’s findings and the deal getting undone

The jury was asked two main questions: whether Thomas lacked capacity at the time of the sale, and whether Poole committed fraud or a breach of contract that proximately caused damages. The jury found Thomas lacked capacity and that Poole had committed either fraud or breach of contract. Notably, the jury was not asked to decide a dollar amount of damages, and Poole did not ask the jury to decide whether he should get an offset.

On January 8, 2024, the circuit court entered judgment granting the plaintiffs relief. The contract was declared “nullified and void,” and the warranty deed transferring the home and 107 acres to Poole was declared null and void as well. Title was vested back into Thomas and Lynn at that point, with the court noting it would “come back” to deal with the $75,000 down payment issue.

After posttrial motions and disputes about execution of the judgment, the circuit court entered an April 23, 2024 order denying Poole’s motion for new trial as untimely. The court also noted Poole had filed a notice of appeal but had not obtained a supersedeas bond, so there was no stay; execution could proceed and Poole was to be removed from the property immediately.

Then, after Thomas died, the circuit court granted a motion on May 1, 2024 to vest title entirely in Lynn’s name due to his death. That’s the line that tends to stick with people: the sale was voided, and the widow kept the land.

Why the appeal didn’t rescue Poole’s arguments

On appeal, Poole raised multiple issues, including claims about “election of remedies,” the denial of a mistrial, and admission of the DHS letter. The appellate court’s handling of those points is a reminder that court isn’t just about what you feel is unfair; it’s about what you properly preserved and argued at the right time.

For example, Poole argued the circuit court shouldn’t have submitted both rescission and breach of contract to the jury. The Court of Appeals said it wouldn’t reach the merits because Poole didn’t raise the issue during trial or obtain a ruling, which is necessary to preserve it for appellate review.

On the mistrial request tied to mention of the DHS letter in opening statements, the court emphasized Poole later acquiesced to admission of the letter by saying he had no objection when it was offered as an exhibit. The court also pointed to the standard jury instruction that opening statements are not evidence, concluding there was no prejudice requiring a mistrial. The same lack-of-objection problem sank Poole’s separate argument that the DHS letter was inadmissible.

The end result from the Court of Appeals was “affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part,” though the portion provided focuses heavily on why several of Poole’s arguments were waived or not preserved. The basic backbone remained: the jury’s findings stood, the sale was treated as void, and title ended up with Lynn after Thomas’s death.

Deals like this are where good paperwork meets human weakness, and weakness always shows up eventually. If someone is aging, mentally slipping, or simply scared about what the next few years will look like, they’re not negotiating from strength—even if they’re sitting on valuable land. The courts can sort out contracts and capacity, but families usually pay the real price in stress and upheaval long before a verdict ever comes back.