Kuelbs v. Hill.pc
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 804
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
No.
CA09-1326
Opinion Delivered
December 1, 2010
KRISTIN KUELBS, DONALD HILL,
AND EDWARDENA HILL
APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. P-07-610-2]
V.
HONORABLE VICKI SHAW COOK,
JUDGE
KIMBERLY HILL
APPELLEE
MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED IN
PART, DENIED IN PART; MOTION
FOR SANCTIONS DENIED
PER CURIAM
Appellee Kimberly Hill seeks dismissal of this appeal, No. CA09-1326, and sanctions
against appellants. She primarily argues that appellants have simply re-asserted the same
arguments in this appeal that they raised in a related appeal. We grant the motion to dismiss
in part and deny it in part, and we deny the motion for sanctions.
Today, we hand down our opinion in a related appeal, Kuelbs v. Hill, 2010 Ark. App.
793, ___ S.W.3d ___. The opinion addresses two issues (and related sub-issues) that are
identical to arguments designated as Points I and II in CA09-1326: whether the circuit court
had the authority to hold further proceedings while an appeal was pending in this
guardianship case; and whether the circuit court erred in appointing appellee as guardian of
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 804
Kristin Kuelbs, despite appellee’s alleged conflict of interest with Ms. Kuelbs. We have
decided both of those points in favor of appellee. Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion to
dismiss as to Points I and II in CA09-1326.
Appellants’ remaining argument, designated as Point III, is that the circuit court
violated due-process guarantees by entering certain orders without notice or a hearing. We
have not yet addressed this argument in any related appeal. We therefore deny appellee’s
motion to dismiss as to appellants’ Point III in CA09-1326.
Appellee must file a brief in CA09-1326 no later than thirty days from today if she
wishes to respond to appellants’ Point III. Appellee is free to re-assert any arguments made
in her motion to dismiss regarding the timeliness of appellants’ appeal or other procedural
bars.
Having denied appellee’s motion to dismiss in part, we also deny her motion for
sanctions.
Motion to dismiss granted in part, denied in part; motion for sanctions denied.
P ITTMAN, J., not participating.
-2-
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.
