“We first note the general rule that statutes have no effect except within the state’s own territorial limits.”
How later courts described this case
- “We first note the general rule that statutes have no effect except within the state’s own territorial limits.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice, concurring.
I concur in the conclusion that the circuit court erred in ordering Jean Hetman to provide an accounting for the time that she served as guardian of Alexandra Vicari under the prior Pennsylvania guardianship. 1 However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the requested accounting but lacked any authority to order an accounting to be undertaken. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy between the parties. Erin, Inc. v. White County Circuit Court, 369 Ark. 265, 268 , 253 S.W.3d 444, 447 (2007). The circuit court either had jurisdiction or it did not. Here the circuit court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction.
The circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to order an accounting in a Pennsylvania guardianship supervised and controlled by the Pennsylvania courts. The confusion may arise because the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the Arkansas guardianship, but that jurisdiction does not reach to control a proceeding before another court in another state in a separate prior guardianship. Guardianships in Arkansas are now largely controlled by statute. See Arkansas Code Annotated, title 28. Guardians appointed in Arkansas guardianships must file ac-countings “(1) [a'Jnnually within sixty (60) days after the anniversary date of his or her appointment; and (2) within sixty (60) days after termination of his or her guardianship.” Ark.Code Ann. § 28-65-320 (Repl.2004). There is no provision in our statutes that purports to grant subject-matter jurisdiction over accountings for actions before a guardianship is created in Arkansas, and certainly we do not have any statutes that would confer jurisdiction on an Arkansas guardianship proceeding that would allow the circuit court to review and act in proceedings occurring under the direction and control of a sister state. If an accounting is to be ordered for the Pennsylvania guardianship, a Pennsylvania court will need to order it.
Schwade is not left without a remedy. The Orphans’ Court in Pennsylvania specifically ordered that the record in that case be retained. An accusation that a guardian 117supervised by the Pennsylvania courts defrauded a ward may result in reopening the guardianship and ordering an accounting by Hetman. Further, if Hetman defrauded Vieari, Schwade, as the Arkansas guardian, is free to pursue any cause of action that exists. See Ark.Code Ann. § 28-65-305 (Repl.2004) (guardian may prosecute suits on behalf of the ward).
GUNTER and DANIELSON, JJ., join. . As the majority notes, the circuit court and the Pennsylvania court characterized this as transfer of a guardianship. There is no basis in the law for a transfer of guardianship between states. No transfer occurred here. A review of the record plainly reveals that the guardianship in Pennsylvania was terminated and, thereafter, a guardianship was created in Arkansas. While the term "transfer” may be useful in helping the courts to assure that a ward is provided with continuous care, it creates confusion when it is argued that jurisdiction was transferred.