# Cogburn v. Wolfenbarger

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · February 25, 2004 · 85 Ark. App. 206

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680207

## Case

- **Full name:** Charles COGBURN v. Mary Sue WOLFENBARGER and Laura Cogburn
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** February 25, 2004
- **Citations:** 85 Ark. App. 206; 148 S.W.3d 787; 2004 Ark. App. LEXIS 166
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Baker
- **Judges:** John B. Robbins
- **Cited by:** 9 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/9680207

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that medical evaluations were insufficient to support appointment of a guardian and that it was not incumbent upon appellant to ask the trial court to consider the relevant statutes that must be satisfied prior to a finding of incapacity
- finding standing where an individual was served with notice of a hearing, filed an answer, and appeared at both the temporary and permanent hearings to contest the guardianship
- rejecting appellee's argument that appellant lacked standing because appellant had been given notice of the hearing, filed an answer to the petition, and appeared at the hearings

## Opinion text

Karen R. Baker, Judge, dissenting. I agree that this case must be reversed because it is undisputed that there was no oral testimony or sworn written statement of a qualified professional as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-211 (b)(1) (Repl. 2004). While I agree that this failure renders the trial court’s finding of incapacity clearly erroneous, I disagree as to the disposition of the case. Rather than remand for further proceedings, I would simply reverse. Because appellees failed to prove their case, and there are no further proceedings to be conducted.
The majority finds, and I agree, that the Petition for Guardianship should have been denied. If the court had done as it should have and denied the petition, that denial would have concluded the litigation. The majority is remanding this case to afford appellee the opportunity to produce evidence sufficient to comply with the statutory requirements. This is not our usual disposition of a case once the case has been heard or had a fair opportunity to be presented. See Moore v. City of Blytheville, 1 Ark. App. 35 , 612 S.W.2d 327 (1981).
I see nothing in the facts of this case that persuades me that we should depart from our customary practice. Therefore, I would not remand the case for further proceedings.
Agree in part; dissent in part.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9680207. Public record. Not legal advice.