Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 461
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-25-568
Opinion Delivered October 7, 2026
DOROTHY RODGERS
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
V. SECOND DIVISION
[NO. 60PR-21-1546]
SABRINE GRAHAM
APPELLEE HONORABLE LUCAS ROWAN,
JUDGE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge
Dorothy Rodgers appeals from the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s order in this
guardianship case. On appeal, she argues that the court’s rulings as to the ward’s property,
contempt, and legal fees should be reversed. We reverse and remand.
Rodgers filed a petition to be appointed guardian of the person and estate of her
brother, Joddy Haynes. Haynes was alleged to be incapacitated following a stroke and was
residing at the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System. Emriye Haynes, Mr. Haynes’s
wife, filed her own petition for appointment as guardian. Mrs. Haynes noted that she
currently lived in Germany. In November 2022, Rodgers was appointed as temporary
guardian, and following a hearing, an order was entered appointing her as permanent
guardian in April 2023. The order contained the following provisions relevant to this appeal:
8. The Court states that the Petitioner will not move forward with any divorce
proceedings between the ward and Emriye Haynes, Petitioner will not change
any pay of the ward’s that is currently going to the support of Emriye Haynes,
and the Petitioner will not remove Emriye Haynes from any of the ward’s
benefits that she may be receiving.
9. The Petitioner shall coordinate with Emriye Haynes to help effectuate the sale,
transfer, or disposition of the Ward’s property in Germany, including, but not
limited to, executing any documents necessary for the disposition of the
vehicles, any documents needed in relation to the marital residence, or any
other document(s) that are reasonably necessary to manage the ward’s estate.
10. The Petitioner shall coordinate with Emriye Haynes to address the
outstanding medical bills in Germany and take any reasonably necessary
actions to help with the payment and to manage the Ward’s debt.
11. The Petitioner shall not take any action regarding the Ward’s estate directly
adverse to Emriye Haynes, as surviving spouse, without first notifying Emriye
Haynes and giving her an opportunity to respond.
Subsequent to her appointment, Rodgers filed a report of guardian and an inventory.
She also filed a petition for reimbursement of legal fees to the guardianship estate. In May
2024, Mrs. Haynes filed a motion for contempt alleging that Rodgers had failed to comply
with paragraphs 9 and 10 of the order appointing guardian by refusing to correspond with
Mrs. Haynes to effectuate the disposition of property in Germany or to address outstanding
medical bills. The motion requested that Rodgers be ordered to pay Haynes’s attorney’s fees
necessitated by her willful disobedience; that she be ordered to cure the contempt within ten
days; and that she be removed as guardian of the estate and Sabrine Graham appointed. In
September 2024, Mrs. Haynes filed a motion to substitute her daughter, Graham, as the real
party in interest because Mrs. Haynes had granted Graham a power of attorney. Graham
was substituted and filed an amended motion for contempt making the same allegations.
2
On March 24, 2025, the court entered an order directing the parties to submit to
mediation and to conclude mediation no later than twenty-one days before the hearing. On
April 15, Graham’s counsel wrote to the court that the parties would not meet the April 22
mediation deadline (the hearing was set for May 13). Counsel stated that Rodgers’s counsel
was contacted on March 25 and April 4 in attempts to schedule mediation, but as of April
15, there had been no response. On April 21, Graham requested a continuance to avoid
unnecessary travel expenses if the hearing was later continued to fulfill the mediation
requirement. On May 9, Rodgers filed a motion for continuance, stating that the parties
were unable to meet the mediation deadline because her counsel was out of state and then
had health issues.
The hearing was held as scheduled on May 13. The continuance motions were
withdrawn, leaving two pending motions according to the court: Graham’s amended motion
for contempt and Rodgers’s motion for fees. Graham and Rodgers testified regarding
compliance with the guardianship order, the ward’s property interests, and issues relating to
whether Rodgers should be removed as guardian. The court issued a partial ruling from the
bench followed by a written order finding that Rodgers’s request for reimbursement of legal
fees was denied, that Rodgers was in contempt, and that Rodgers would remain guardian for
now. The court also made several rulings regarding the ward’s property as detailed below.
Rodgers timely appealed.
Rodgers first argues that the circuit court erred in sua sponte granting relief to Mrs.
Haynes in the order as follows:
3
9. Mrs. Haynes may take possession of all property in Germany and do with it
what she pleases as owner of the property. She shall provide an inventory to
the Guardian when she moves the property or by the end of 2025, whichever
is first.
10. Mrs. Haynes may take possession of all property in the storage unit in Texas
and do with it what she pleases as owner of the property. She shall provide an
inventory to the Guardian when she moves the property or by the end of 2025,
whichever is first.
11. Mrs. Haynes shall provide a limited power of attorney or transfer of ownership
document for each of the Ward’s vehicles that are in Germany to the guardian.
The guardian shall then execute these documents and return them to Mrs.
Haynes within 1 week.
21. The guardian shall ensure that Mrs. Haynes is listed as a joint owner,
beneficiary, or as the payable on death for each financial account that the
Ward has to ensure Mrs. Haynes is not deprived her interest in the assets in
the event of the Ward’s passing.
24. Mrs. Haynes is awarded $20,000.00 out of the financial accounts being held
by the Guardian on the Ward’s behalf. Ms. Rodgers, as guardian, shall pay
Mrs. Haynes the $20,000.00 within 14 days from the entry of this Order. This
is what is ordered to be paid now, but is not a ruling or opinion that this is all
Mrs. Haynes is entitled to. As the Ward and Mrs. Haynes remain married,
each may have a ½ undivided interest in all of their collective assets.
Rodgers argues that none of these issues were raised in the pending motions before
the court and none of this relief was requested at the hearing. First, as to paragraphs 9 and
11 regarding the property in Germany, the court addressed these issues at the end of the
hearing and made oral rulings consistent with the order. Rodgers made no objection to the
court’s rulings regarding this property, and, in fact, her attorney replied “Got it” when the
court stated, “What we’re doing is we’re getting it in [Mrs. Haynes’s] name so she can sell it
4
in Germany.” Accordingly, no argument is preserved as to these rulings. See Riley v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2011 Ark. 256, 381 S.W.3d 840 (holding that an argument was not
preserved because under the doctrine of invited error an appellant may not complain of an
erroneous action of a circuit court on appeal if he or she has induced or acquiesced in that
action).
However, when the court asked about “the stuff in the United States, the house, [and]
the $100,000” at the end of the hearing, both parties informed the court that those issues
were not yet before the court. The court stated that it agreed. After the court expressed its
desire to avoid everyone having to come back to court, Rodgers’s counsel proposed that
Rodgers would not be opposed to the idea of having the ward abandon his assets in Germany
and “leave the ward’s estate here intact.” The court then made its rulings regarding the
property in Germany. The only oral ruling regarding other property, however, was for
Graham to provide an accounting to Rodgers of the contents of the storage unit. The orders
in paragraphs 10, 21, and 24 regarding possession of the property in the storage unit and
financial accounts were made without notice to the parties or the benefit of evidence or
argument regarding those issues. As stated above, the court agreed that these matters were
not before it. Therefore, we hold that the court committed reversible error in making these
orders. See Rogers v. Lamb, 347 Ark. 102, 60 S.W.3d 456 (2001) (noting in reversing sua
sponte ruling that neither party was afforded the opportunity to introduce evidence or
witness testimony in support of their positions); Dorey v. Dorey, 2024 Ark. App. 199, 686
S.W.3d 618 (reversing circuit court’s sua sponte modification of divorce decree).
5
Rodgers next argues that the circuit court erred in finding her in contempt of the
mediation order and the order appointing guardian. She challenges both contempt findings
on several bases, and we agree that both must be reversed. Generally, in order to establish
contempt, there must be willful disobedience of a valid order of a court. Privilege Underwriters
Reciprocal Exch. v. Adams, 2024 Ark. App. 571. Before one can be held in contempt for
violating the court’s order, the order must be definite in its terms, clear as to what duties it
imposes, and express in its commands. Id.
With regard to the mediation order, the court found that Rodgers’s counsel provided
no explanation as to why she never communicated regarding mediation or why she never
attempted to mediate after her health improved. The court concluded that Rodgers made
no effort to comply with the mediation order and was in contempt. On appeal, Rodgers
argues that there was no evidence that she was willfully disobedient since the reasons
mediation did not take place were beyond her control. We agree. At the beginning of the
hearing, Rodgers’s counsel informed the court that mediation did not take place because she
had been out of state and had a subsequent illness. There were no statements made about
anything Rodgers herself did or did not do regarding mediation. Accordingly, there was no
evidence of willful disobedience to support a finding of contempt against Rodgers.
The circuit court also found Rodgers in contempt for her failure to comply with the
guardianship order’s directive that she
shall coordinate with Emriye Haynes to help effectuate the sale, transfer, or
disposition of the Ward’s property in Germany, including, but not limited to,
executing any documents necessary for the disposition of the vehicles, any documents
6
needed in relation to the marital residence, or any other document(s) that are
reasonably necessary to manage the ward’s estate.
Rodgers argues that the guardianship order was not clear and definite because it did not
specify what actions Rodgers was to take, what assets were involved, or when she was required
to act. She argues that the requirement to “coordinate” is an inherently vague directive
lacking objective standards.
There was no evidence that Rodgers refused to execute any document referenced in
the order. The only other directive was to “coordinate” with Mrs. Haynes. We agree that
this order was not clear and definite. When there is nothing in the court’s order to indicate
a party’s specific duty to do something, a party is free of contempt. Elder v. Elder, 2018 Ark.
App. 276, 549 S.W.3d 919. The court’s contempt finding focused on what Rodgers should
have done to coordinate with Mrs. Haynes, but one may not be held in contempt for what
she was not specifically ordered to do. See Holifield v. Mullenax Fin. & Tax Advisory Grp., Inc.,
2009 Ark. App. 280, 307 S.W.3d 608. Since the guardianship order did not give Rodgers
specific duties, the court may not retrospectively declare what should have been done and
hold her in contempt. See Elder, supra. Accordingly, both contempt findings and awards of
attorney’s fees to Graham are reversed.
Rodgers next challenges the circuit court’s denial of her request for reimbursement
of legal fees to the guardianship estate. Rodgers filed a petition for reimbursement in March
2024, which the circuit court denied without explanation. On appeal, she argues that she
was entitled to be reimbursed pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 28-65-319(a)(1)
7
(Repl. 2012) and that the court’s order should be reversed and remanded for consideration
of the relevant factors.
The guardian may employ legal counsel in connection with the discharge of his or
her duties, and the court shall fix the attorney’s fee, which shall be allowed as an item of the
expense of administration. Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-319(a)(1). In Bailey v. Rahe, 355 Ark.
560, 142 S.W.3d 634 (2004), the supreme court held in a guardianship case that although
the circuit court gave some reasoning for its reduction of some requested fees and
disallowance of other fees, the supreme court was unable to discern under what authority
the circuit court made its rulings. The supreme court reversed and remanded for the circuit
court to consider the proper factors. Here, the circuit court provided no reasoning for its
denial of fees. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the circuit court to analyze the
relevant factors pursuant to Bailey.
Reversed and remanded.
ABRAMSON and VIRDEN, JJ., agree.
Streit Law Firm, PLLC, by: Jonathan R. Streit, for appellant.
Lion Legal Services, by: Kathryn Loyd Wilson, for appellee.
8