Robbins v. Robbins
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 541 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CA10-841 Opinion Delivered JACKIE ROBBINS APPELLANT SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. DR-05-614-1] V. HONORABLE JOHN HOMER WRIGHT, JUDGE DEBBIE ROBBINS APPELLEE AFFIRMED LARRY VAUGHT, Chief Judge On appeal, Jackie Robbins argues that the trial court erred in its decision awarding attorney s fees against him. The court s fee award followed an unsuccessful custody-modification attempt by Mr. Robbins against his former wife appellee Debbie Robbins. On appeal, Mr. Robbins claims that the trial court erred in granting Ms. Robbins s attorney-fee motion because it was not timely filed. Mr. Robbins specifically claims that because the motion was filed outside of the requisite fourteen-day time limit and did not contain the requisite statutory basis for granting the fee, the award was beyond the trial court s statutory authority and urges reversal. However, we are unable to reach the merits of his argument because the question is not adequately preserved for our review. The record shows that on May 26, 2010, Ms. Robbins moved for an award of Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 541 attorney s fees. Neither the record nor the addendum contain any evidence that Mr. Robbins raised his claim that the motion was untimely by either written or oral response.1 It is elementary that appellate courts will not consider arguments that were not preserved for appellate review. Seidenstricker Farms v. Doss, 374 Ark. 123, 126, 286 S.W.3d 142, 144 (2008). We will not do so because it is incumbent upon the parties to raise arguments initially to the trial court and to give that court an opportunity to consider them. Id., 286 S.W.3d at 144. Otherwise, we would be placed in the position of reversing a trial court for reasons not addressed by that court. Id., 286 S.W.3d at 144. Because Mr. Robbins did not preserve the timeliness argument made on appeal, we cannot consider that argument and must affirm the trial court s order granting Ms. Robbins s claim for attorney s fees. Affirmed. H ART and G LOVER, JJ., agree. 1 We note that Mr. Robbins s statement of the case does claim that he filed an immediate response objecting to the allegedly groundless and untimely motion, but the record does not support his claim. 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.
