# Hooten v. Jensen

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · February 8, 2006 · 94 Ark. App. 130

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677794

## Case

- **Full name:** Terry HOOTEN, Special Administrator of the Estate of Sammy J. Hooten, Deceased v. Jacqueline JENSEN
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** February 8, 2006
- **Citations:** 94 Ark. App. 130; 227 S.W.3d 431
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Robbins
- **Judges:** Robert J. Gladwin
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677794

## Opinion text

John B. Robbins, Judge, concurring. I concur in the majority’s decision to affirm this case. I write separately because I would reach the merits of Terry’s argument that Jackie unduly influenced Sammy into entering into the marriage. In light of the evidence, the trial court did not clearly err in finding no undue influence and in failing to set aside the marriage. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that none of the remaining findings were clearly erroneous.
Citing Vance v. Hinch, supra, the majority held that Terry cannot challenge the validity of the marriage because one of the parties to the marriage is deceased. However, that issue was not raised as a defense below, and we will not consider arguments that were not argued to the trial court. See Laird v. Shelnut, 348 Ark. 632 , 74 S.W.3d 206 (2002). Moreover, Jackie does not even make this argument on appeal. It is axiomatic that we refrain from addressing issues not raised on appeal. Phillips v. Earngey, 321 Ark. 476 , 902 S.W.2d 782 (1995). I submit that our review should be limited to the issues that have been raised and developed by the parties. And even if this issue were before this court, it would be unnecessary to affirm on the basis that the trial court reached the right result for the wrong reason because the reason given by the trial court was not wrong.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677794. Public record. Not legal advice.