Cato v. Hightower
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 254
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CA10-1090
Opinion Delivered
PATSY CATO and KATHI
THOMPSON
APPELLANTS
April 6, 2011
APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[No. CV-2009-0982]
V.
JOYCE HIGHTOWER, BARBARA
DROEMER, and JERRY DROEMER
APPELLEES
HONORABLE DAVID CLARK,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Chief Judge
Appellants Patsy Cato and Kathi Thompson petitioned to vacate and set aside two
deeds that were filed in 1992. It was their position that the deeds had been forged. Appellees
Joyce Hightower and Barbara and Jerry Droemer responded with a motion for summary
judgment stating that because the deeds had been public record since 1992, appellants were
time-barred from bringing suit. The trial court agreed and issued an order on July 14, 2010,
granting appellees’ summary-judgment motion. On appeal, appellants claim the trial court
erred in taking judicial notice of an ancillary probate proceeding involving the same parties.
However, the issue is not preserved for our review, and we affirm.
It is undisputed that at the time the trial court took the allegedly erroneous judicial
notice of the prior proceeding no objection was made. Our court has recently considered this
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 254
precise matter. In Maynard v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, a February 2, 2011
opinion, we reasoned:
The circuit court took judicial notice that a parent under the influence
of drugs cannot make reasonable decisions about their child’s health, safety, or
welfare. Maynard argues that the court’s action in taking judicial notice was
improper because this was not a “fact” capable of being judicially noticed and
none of the other requirements for taking judicial notice were met. This
argument is not preserved for our review because Maynard did not object to
the circuit court taking judicial notice. A party is entitled upon timely request
to an opportunity to be heard as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and
the tenor of the matter noticed. Ark. R. Evid. 201(e). In the absence of prior
notification, the request may be made after judicial notice has been taken. Id.
Maynard neither objected nor requested a hearing on the propriety of judicial
notice. To preserve an argument for appeal, there must be an objection in the
circuit court that is sufficient to apprise that court of the particular error alleged.
Love v. State, 324 Ark. 526, 922 S.W.2d 701 (1996); Ark. R. Evid. 103(a)(1).
2011 Ark. App. 82, at 7–8, ___, S.W.3d ___, ___. Likewise, in the case presently before us,
no objection was made to the trial court’s exercise of judicial notice, and the issue is not
preserved for our review.
Affirmed.
G RUBER and B ROWN, JJ., agree.
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.
