Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; June 9, 1952; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
A dispute has arisen between brothers regarding the estate management of their deceased sister, Maude Dixon, who was committed to a mental hospital in 1928 and died in 1951. The appeal stems from probate court judgments issued on December 8, 1950, and April 19, 1951. The latter judgment appointed P. L. Copeland as guardian, succeeding Hugh Dixon, who resigned that day. The appellants filed certified copies of the judgments on October 19, 1951, but the record was incomplete, leading to a second writ being issued on January 8, 1952. This second writ followed Maude Dixon's death intestate on October 24, 1951, and the completed record was not submitted until February 18, 1952.
The appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgments, as well as to strike the transcribed testimony included in the record. The December 8, 1950 judgment was followed by a hearing on December 15, 1950, which declared a previous order void but upheld Hugh Dixon's guardianship. The April 19, 1951 judgment noted a vacancy in the guardianship due to Hugh Dixon's resignation and appointed Copeland, concluding that Hugh Dixon's prior guardianship was moot.
Appellees cite Ark. Stats. 27-2106 and Rule 5 of the court, which stipulate that appeals must be filed within six months of the judgment unless the appellant has disabilities. They argue that the partial transcript filed by appellants was late, exceeding the deadline of June 15, 1951, and assert that Hugh Dixon acted as the legal representative of Maude Dixon. The court will consider these motions, with the appellants' actions as next friends deemed insufficient to alter the legal representation status of Hugh Dixon.
Appeals must be filed within six months of the judgment, a jurisdictional requirement. The appeal from the December 15, 1950, judgment was untimely and subject to dismissal. A partial transcript related to a second judgment from April 15, 1951, was filed on the last day of the appeal period, but the transcribed testimony necessary for both judgments was submitted after the appeal deadline, rendering it inadmissible. The second judgment confirms that all parties were present in court, and it is presumed that the evidence supports the appointment of P. L. Copeland as guardian. Appellants argue that, despite procedural issues, the case should be reviewed via certiorari due to alleged void proceedings regarding the guardianship. The record shows that Hugh Dixon was approved as guardian on May 25, 1935, although no formal order was recorded. Subsequent actions by Clyde Dixon to obtain guardianship were quashed by the probate court, which cited the earlier valid appointment. The court found no basis for the appellants' claims that the guardianship was void, distinguishing this case from prior precedent where no court approval existed. The judgments were affirmed, with the statute governing appeals amended but without claims for exceptions to the filing deadlines.
