Stautzenberger v. Stautzenberger, 2013 Ark. 148

Blair Stautzenberger served as guardian of the estate of his mother C. Elizabeth Osborne from June 7, 2007, to July 24, 2009.
After Osborne’s death, Blair’s siblings Duane and Michael challenged his management of the estate.
A master found misappropriation of $128,990.86, with specific disallowances and findings of improper expenditures and investment losses by Blair.
The trial court initially disallowed $85,747.17 of expenditures and held Blair personally liable for $201,587.23 in losses plus a $15,000 cash withdrawal; later, a February 2012 modification reduced amounts due by 60% due to other heirs standing by Blair.
Blair argued the trial court exceeded Rule 60 authority by retroactively imposing personal liability and that certain expenditures were proper care and maintenance under the ward’s pattern of spending.
The court of appeals certified questions to the Arkansas Supreme Court to construe probate code provisions governing guardian duties, expenditures, and post-judgment corrections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 60(a) modification was within authority	Blair: modification exceeded authority, no clerical mistake.	Estate: modification within Rule 60(a) to correct errors and prevent injustice; court intended to impose liability.	Modification within Rule 60(a) proper; not an error.
Whether the circuit court properly disallowed expenditures for care and maintenance	Blair: expenditures aligned with ward’s prior pattern and maintenance needs.	Estate: many expenditures were improper or unsupported.	Court erred in blanket disallowance; some expenditures proper and remanded for further findings.
Applicability of statutory substitutions or guardianship doctrine to expenditures	Blair: doctrine of substituted judgment supports gifts and ongoing support to family and church.	Estate: must follow guardianship statute and orders; no substituted-judgment justification.	Doctrine may apply; remand to reconsider under substituted-judgment framework.
Whether authorizations for recurring expenditures were required or excused after the fact	Blair: circuit court could approve post hoc expenditures if reasonable for ward.	Estate: lacking pre‑order authorization warrants disallowance.	Disallowance questioned; remand to consider under substituted-judgment and post‑fact approvals.

Small v. State, 371 Ark. 244 (2007) (declines merits-based argument raised first in reply)
Federal Land Bank of St. Louis v. Miller, 184 Ark. 415 (1931) (maintenance scope in guardian/trust contexts)
Francis v. Francis, 343 Ark. 104 (2000) (trustee use of funds to maintain ward’s living standard)
Winters v. Winters, 24 Ark.App. 29 (1988) (church donations challenged; guardianship allowances framework)
Shinley v. Ricks, 234 Ark. 767 (1962) (probate court can approve expenditures after the fact if reasonable)