“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
ROBERT L. BROWN, Justice, concurring.
I concur in the judgment because I agree with the majority that under current Arkansas statutes, the circuit judge lacked authority to order Ms. Hetman, a previous guardian who was appointed and removed by a Pennsylvania court, to file an accounting. That is unfortunate since I believe an accounting is appropriate in this case. I write separately to express my view that the Arkansas General Assembly should consider amending our guardianship statutes to address circumstances comparable to those that occurred in the instant case. 1
In our increasingly mobile society, I fear we will see many more cases with facts similar to those in this case, and Arkansas courts need the authority to effectively manage guardianships that are transferred here from other jurisdictions. I recognize the procedural | ^problems associated with this case. Ms. Hetman is no longer a guardian of her mother’s person or estate, and the Pennsylvania court did not have authority to transfer jurisdiction of the case to Arkansas. Where, as here, however, an Arkansas court specifically accepts jurisdiction of a guardianship from another state, and the former guardian submits to the jurisdiction of the court, that court should be permitted by statute to order the former guardian to file an accounting.
. At least four states and the District of Columbia, have passed the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (UAGPPJA) and another twenty are considering the measure. The UAGPPJA does not include a provision that would apply directly to these facts, but it does contemplate many of the problems that can arise with regard to multi-jurisdictional guardianship proceedings.