Kuelbs v. Hill
2010 Ark. App. 793
Ark. Ct. App.2010Background
- Kristin Kuelbs, incapacitated, guardianship cases continually appealed; March–April 2009 orders including guardian appointment to Kimberly Hill challenged by Donald Hill and Edwardena Hill.
- Kristin suffered head injuries in 2001; Wisconsin court evaluated her, recommending against a family-member guardian; Dr. Deyoub diagnosed mental illness requiring guardian and in-patient treatment.
- 2008 circuit court appointed Swearingen as guardian of Kristin's person and First National Bank as guardian of her estate; later events led to Donald’s appointment as guardian of Kristin’s person and subsequent removal.
- Donald failed to admit Kristin to Bridgeway as ordered; court found Kristin dangerous and removed Donald as guardian, appointing Kimberly Hill and restricting Donald’s access.
- Kimberly moved Kristin to Mayo Clinic; the Hill appeal followed, with the appellate court addressing jurisdiction, guardian qualifications/hearings, due process, and sanctions, ultimately affirming the orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court authority to proceed after appeal filed | Donald argues the circuit court lacked authority after lodging the appeal | Hill contends ongoing guardianship events justify continuing actions | Court acted within authority; not rigidly bound to halt proceedings; ongoing consequences warranted action |
| Appointment of Kimberly Hill as guardian with conflict/qualification concerns | Donald asserts conflict of interest and insufficient hearing/findings | Kimberly’s appointment was proper after considering alternatives; no mandatory hearing required | No reversible error; no statutory requirement for a hearing or specific findings; appointment upheld |
| Due process and recusal/bias claims | Donald alleges bias and lack of recusal | Court not biased; rulings adverse to Donald do not imply recusal | No due process violation or bias shown; recusal not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Standridge, 299 Ark. 91, 771 S.W.2d 22 (1989) (stay of probate proceedings requires finding of no prejudice)
- Stilley v. Ft. Smith Sch. Dist., 367 Ark. 193, 238 S.W.3d 902 (2006) (court may enforce prior orders; retains authority after related proceedings)
- Slaton v. Slaton, 330 Ark. 287, 956 S.W.2d 150 (1997) (court retains jurisdiction to modify ongoing child custody/ support orders)
- Campbell v. State, 311 Ark. 641, 846 S.W.2d 639 (1993) (arguments raised for first time on appeal are generally not considered in involuntary‑commitment cases)
- Alexander v. First Nat’l Bank of Ft. Smith, 278 Ark. 406, 646 S.W.2d 684 (1983) (trial court maintains jurisdiction until record is lodged on appeal)
- Foster v. Foster, 377 S.W.3d 497 (2010) (appellate evidentiary/argument standards applied inArkansas appellate practice)