FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SEVENTEENTH DIVISION
[NO. 60PR-16-2225] HONORABLE MACKIE M. PIERCE, JUDGE
& Hardy, PLLC, by: Betty J. Hardy, for appellant.
Ramsay, Bridgforth, Robinson, and Raley, LLP, by: Anthony A.
Hilliard, for appellees.
J. GLADWIN, Judge.
Guenther appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court's July
25, 2017 order appointing a permanent guardian of the person
and estate of James Guenther, her husband, and the order
appointing a temporary guardian of James filed March 2, 2017.
Her sole argument on appeal is that the circuit court erred
by ordering her to transfer all the funds previously held
jointly in her and James's names into James's
guardianship account to be administered by appellees Glynn
Guenther and Aric Guenther, James's son and grandson,
respectively, and to return all of James's property to
his estate. For the following reasons, we dismiss the appeal.
record was lodged on appeal on October 25, 2017. According to
pleadings filed-first in the circuit court, then in this
court-Betty died on November 2, 2017, after the record had
been lodged on appeal. In Planchon v. Local Police &
Fire Retirement Systems, 2015 Ark. 131, 458 S.W.3d 728,
the Arkansas Supreme Court stated that "[it has] no rule
governing substitution on appeal." In Planchon,
the appellant died after the record was lodged; as a result,
his attorney filed a motion for revivor and substitution or,
alternatively, to remand to the circuit court for entry of
such an order. The supreme court remanded because there was
no statute or rule in place that allowed for revival and
substitution of an appellant otherwise. See id. In
response to Planchon, Rule 12 of the Arkansas Rules
of Appellate Procedure-Civil was adopted to create a
procedure for substitution of parties on appeal. Rule 12
became effective in January 2018.
instant matter, instead of filing a suggestion of death and a
motion for revivor or remand in our court, which was the
procedure before January 2018, Betty's counsel filed a
petition in the circuit court after the record had been
lodged on appeal but before the effective date of Rule 12.
The petition, filed in James's guardianship matter (60PR
2016-2225), was for special administrators to be appointed
and substituted as the party for Betty in the guardianship
matter and in the appeal (CV-17-884). The order was signed
and filed by the circuit court on December 13, 2017. On March
12, 2018, special administrators on behalf of Betty filed a
motion in this court to supplement the record, requesting
that the petition for special administrators and order
appointing them be added to the record on appeal, thus
substituting themselves as the party for Betty on
the circuit court was without jurisdiction to appoint special
administrators to act on Betty's behalf. Arkansas Code
Annotated section 28-1-116(e)(1) (Repl. 2012) provides that
an appeal shall stay other proceedings in the circuit court
except when and to the extent that the court finds that no
interested person will be prejudiced and by order permits
other proceedings to be had. Generally, a circuit court loses
jurisdiction to act once the record is lodged on appeal.
See Myers v. Yingling, 369 Ark. 87, 251 S.W.3d 287
(2007) (filing of a notice of appeal from an unappealable
order and the subsequent lodging of the record in the
appellate court bars the circuit court from acting further
until the appellate court formally dismisses the appeal).
in child-custody and child-support cases, the circuit court
retains jurisdiction to modify or enforce prior orders,
see Slaton v. Slaton, 330 Ark. 287, 956 S.W.2d 150
(1997), and circuit courts have continuing jurisdiction to
correct records in order to make them speak the truth,
see Myers, supra. By analogy, a
guardianship case requires the circuit court's ability to
modify or enforce its orders based on the needs of the ward.
E.g., Kuelbs v. Hill, 2010 Ark.App. 793, at
5-6, 379 S.W.3d 716, 719-20 (the circuit court acted within
its authority by removing a noncompliant guardian after the
record had been lodged on appeal). Taking this reasoning to
its fullest extent, a circuit court would not have
jurisdiction in a guardianship case to "act
further" in the matter, save for its need to enforce or
modify orders based on the ward's needs. See id.
Thus, the exception to the rule that a circuit court loses
jurisdiction to act once the record is lodged on appeal as
described in Kuelbs-a circuit court must act to
safeguard the ward-is not applicable in the present
circumstances. The circuit court was without authority to
appoint special administrators to replace Betty, whose case
was on appeal and squarely within this court's
because the appeal before us does not have an appellant to
prosecute the appeal, we dismiss., 
and Vaught, JJ., agree.