Elizabeth Jenson v. Conrad House
Annotate this CaseNOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE
DIVISION II
ELIZABETH JENSON
APPELLANT
V.
CONRAD HOUSE
APPELLEE
CA01-379
December 12, 2001
APPEAL FROM THE HOT SPRING COUNTY PROBATE COURT
[NO. P-98-200-1]
HON. JOHN W. COLE,
PROBATE JUDGE
APPEAL DISMISSED
This appeal is from a finding of contempt that arose in the course of a guardianship case. The order is not final because, although a hearing was pending to determine what punishment would be appropriate, at the time this appeal was filed no punishment had been decided on or imposed.
As a general rule, a finding of contempt is an appealable order in the sense that one need not wait until the underlying proceedings are concluded to appeal from the contempt. See Hutchins v. Hutchins, 330 Ark. 426, 954 S.W.2d 249 (1997). However, a contempt order must be a final contempt order to be appealable, i.e., it must be a final disposition of the contempt matter as between the appellant and the court. Taylor v. Taylor, 26 Ark. App. 31, 759 S.W.2d 222 (1988). In the present case, the record indicates that punishment for the
contempt would be decided at a future hearing. Thus, there has been no final disposition of the contempt matter, and the appeal must be dismissed for lack of finality.
Appeal dismissed.
Jennings and Vaught, JJ., agree.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.