Rogers v. Ritchie
2017 Ark. App. 420
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- John Collins Rogers was placed under guardianship in 2004; his wife Barbara Rogers was appointed guardian of his person and estate.
- An audit revealed John commingled client trust funds and used them for personal expenses; the Martin Family Trust obtained a $723,167.76 consent judgment against Barbara in her capacity as guardian.
- Barbara failed to perform statutorily required inventory and accountings and paid expenses from family accounts; John died in 2007 and the guardianship later transferred to the Ninth Division.
- Florida Martin Ritchie (as personal representative of John’s estate) objected to many expenditures Barbara listed as guardianship expenses; years of litigation followed over which expenditures were allowable.
- The circuit court allowed some expenditures, disallowed others, found $56,431.87 transferable to John’s estate, and terminated the guardianship; both parties appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barbara) | Defendant's Argument (Florida) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the guardianship order is void for lack of required professional evaluation | Barbara argued she should not be penalized; she defended the appointment below | Florida argued the appointment lacked required professional evaluation and should be set aside | Court: Barbara invited the error by requesting/defending the guardianship; guardianship not void (invited-error doctrine) |
| Whether ward's funds could be used to support spouse/household (spousal support from ward’s funds) | Barbara contended household/support expenditures were permissible as they benefitted John and followed past patterns | Florida argued ward’s funds could not be used for Barbara’s personal support | Court: Reversed the categorical bar; remanded to determine whether each expenditure was reasonable, necessary, and proper for the ward’s care/maintenance under governing precedent |
| Whether circuit court properly disallowed specific expenditures (food/nutrition, storage fees, housing, auto, insurance, taxes, maintenance, life premiums) | Barbara argued expenditures were for ward’s care/maintenance and should be evaluated for reasonableness rather than blanket disallowance | Florida argued many of these were improper personal expenses and should be disallowed | Court: Remanded—trial court must assess each category for reasonableness/necessity; noted clerical error re: food calculation and directed at least some housing/utilities/transportation be considered allowable for the ward |
| Cross-appeal: Whether funeral and life-insurance premiums were allowable guardianship expenses | (Barbara did not brief cross-appeal) | Florida argued funeral and life-insurance premiums were improper because guardianship terminates at death and premiums partly benefitted Barbara | Court: Funeral expenses disallowed (guardianship terminated at death and Barbara did not convert to estate); life-insurance premiums remanded for reduction to the portion attributable to John (premiums covered both lives) |
Key Cases Cited
- Stautzenberger v. Stautzenberger, 427 S.W.3d 17 (Ark. 2013) (expenditures that contribute to ward’s care and match prior patterns may be permissible if reasonable and necessary)
- Seymour v. Biehslich, 266 S.W.3d 722 (Ark. 2007) (probate findings reviewed de novo but factual findings not reversed unless clearly erroneous)
- Freeman v. Rushton, 202 S.W.3d 485 (Ark. 2005) (appellate courts give no deference to circuit court on questions of law)