Ark. Code Ann. » Title 28 Chapter 65
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-207 (2026)

Notice of hearing for appointment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. Notice of the hearing for the appointment of a guardian need not be given to any person:
    1. Who has signed the petition;
    2. Who has in writing waived notice of the hearing, except the alleged incapacitated person may not waive notice;
    3. Who actually appears at the hearing;
    4. Whose existence, relationship to the alleged incapacitated person, or whereabouts is unknown and cannot by the exercise of reasonable diligence be ascertained;
    5. Other than the alleged incapacitated person, whom the court finds to be beyond the limits of the continental United States or himself or herself incompetent; or
    6. The alleged incapacitated person if the court finds that he or she is detained or confined by a foreign power or has disappeared.
  2. Except as provided in subsection (a) of this section, before the court shall appoint a guardian, other than a temporary guardian, notice of the hearing of the application for the appointment of the guardian shall be served upon the following:
    1. The alleged incapacitated person if over fourteen (14) years of age, and the alleged incapacitated person shall be notified of his or her rights under § 28-65-213. This notice shall be served with the notice of hearing;
    2. The parents of the alleged incapacitated person, if the alleged incapacitated person is a minor;
    3. The spouse, if any, of the alleged incapacitated person;
    4. Any other person who is the guardian of the person or of the estate of the alleged incapacitated person, or any other person who has the care and custody of the alleged incapacitated person, and the director of any agency from which the respondent is receiving services;
    5. The Department of Human Services when the petition seeks appointment of a guardian who, at the time the petition is filed, serves as guardian of five (5) or more minor wards;
    6. If there is neither a known parent nor known spouse, at least one (1) of the nearest competent relatives by blood or marriage of the alleged incapacitated person; and
    7. If directed by the court:
      1. Any department, bureau, agency, or political subdivision of the United States or of this state which makes or awards compensation, pension, insurance, or other allowance for the benefit of the ward or his or her estate;
      2. Any department, bureau, agency, or political subdivision of the United States or of this state or any charitable organization, which may be charged with the supervision, control, or custody of the incompetent person; or
      3. Any other person designated by the court.
    1. If the incapacitated person is over fourteen (14) years of age, there shall be personal service upon him or her if personal service can be had. Service on others may be had in any manner provided by § 28-1-112(b) or (e).
    2. The court, for good cause shown, may reduce the number of days of notice, but in every case at least twenty (20) days' notice shall be given.
    3. It shall not be necessary that the person for whom guardianship is sought be represented by a guardian ad litem in the proceedings.

History. Acts 1985, No. 940, § 12; A.S.A. 1947, § 57-831; Acts 1991, No. 163, § 2.

Case Notes

Appearance of Incompetent.

Proceedings for the appointment of a permanent guardian were not rendered invalid because of the lack of notice where the incompetent entered her appearance. Lester v. Pilkinton, 225 Ark. 349, 282 S.W.2d 590 (1955) (decision under prior law).

Failure to Give Notice.

Where an original order appointing a guardian was void because it was issued without notice to the alleged incompetent and the guardianship was dismissed on a hearing on the merits, the guardian and his attorney could not be paid from the estate of the alleged incompetent. Powers v. Chisman, 217 Ark. 508, 231 S.W.2d 598 (1950) (decision under prior law).

Order appointing the mother's aunt and uncle guardian of the minor child was proper because the father's parents did not have standing to argue that the trial court erred in denying the father's motion to vacate; a U.S. Const. Amend. VI right to counsel was not cognizable in ordinary civil cases; subdivision (a)(3) of this section provided that notice need not be given to any person who actually appeared at the hearing; and there was no evidence that the trial court ignored the father's wishes, § 28-65-204(b). Light v. Duvall, 2011 Ark. App. 535, 385 S.W.3d 399 (2011).

Knowledge of Appointment.

Where the brother of an incompetent knew of the appointment of the incompetent's stepdaughter, who stood in loco filiae with incompetent, as his guardian and wrote for and received copies of reports of the probate court, approvals of the probate court of first and second annual reports of guardian were not void because brother had not been served with formal copies of the reports. Metcalfe v. Nichol, 225 Ark. 574, 283 S.W.2d 853 (1955) (decision under prior law).

Presence at Hearing.

If a trial court exercised its discretion at an insanity hearing and barred an alleged incompetent from courtroom during part of the hearing, any abuse of such discretion was merely an error in exercise of jurisdiction, corrected only by appeal, and was not ground for granting a writ of injunction from further proceeding on a petition by the alleged incompetent. Wilson v. Williams, 215 Ark. 576, 221 S.W.2d 773 (1949) (decision under prior law).

Trial court at an insanity hearing had discretion in determining whether physical presence of an alleged incompetent was necessary at all times during the trial. Wilson v. Williams, 215 Ark. 576, 221 S.W.2d 773 (1949) (decision under prior law).

Prohibition of Further Proceedings.

An alleged incompetent was not entitled to a writ of prohibition against trial court from further proceedings in insanity hearing on the grounds that the sheriff was not a proper person to act as guardian and that evidence was not sufficient to support the finding of insanity, as the grounds alleged involved only mere errors reviewable only on appeal, and not by a writ of prohibition. Wilson v. Williams, 215 Ark. 576, 221 S.W.2d 773 (1949) (decision under prior law).

Requirement.

Notice to the alleged incapacitated person was required prior to the appointment of a guardian of the person and the estate where none of the exceptions in subsection (a) to the notice requirement applied and the appointment was not temporary. Earle v. Bennett, 289 Ark. 448, 711 S.W.2d 829 (1986).

Standing.

Mother lacked standing to challenge the guardianship petition based on the failure to serve the biological father or find him unfit. Reagan v. Dodson, 2016 Ark. App. 598, 509 S.W.3d 654 (2016).

Waiver of Notice.

Circuit court did not clearly err when it found that appellant's waiver of notice as written applied to “all proceedings” and that appellant did not intend it to be limited to only proceedings that involved the appointment of his parents as guardians to his children, as opposed to other persons; although appellant could have limited under the statute his waiver to waive notice only of specific hearings, he failed to do so. Paschall v. Paschall, 2018 Ark. App. 514, 563 S.W.3d 592 (2018).

Cited: Hooks v. Pratte, 53 Ark. App. 161, 920 S.W.2d 24 (1996); Finney v. Cook, 351 Ark. 367, 94 S.W.3d 333 (2002).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2021 · leading case: Finney v. Cook, 94 S.W.3d 333 (Ark. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Finney v. Cook, 94 S.W.3d 333 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 12× “Patricia argues that she did not receive the notice required by Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-207 (b)(2) in the manner prescribed in Ark.”
In Re Guardianship of Pitts, 2021 Ark. App. 250 (Ark. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 7× “Further, in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-207 (b)(6) (Repl. 2012), Andrew provided notice to one of his siblings, Kellie A.”
Cogburn v. Wolfenbarger, 148 S.W.3d 787 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “Cogburn was given notice of the hearing for the appointment of a guardian as required by Ark.Code Ann. § 28-65-207(b)(5) (Supp.1999).”
Hooks v. Pratte, 920 S.W.2d 24 (Ark. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “They claim that the probate court’s holding that an adjudication of paternity was necessary in order for Hooks to participate in the proceeding is clearly erroneous because Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-207 (b) (Supp. 1993) makes no distinction between a parent of a legitimate child…”
Reagan v. Dodson, 2016 Ark. App. 598 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “Although Pamela submits that nowhere in the guardianship statutes is there a provision excusing the signature of a litigant or his attorney from the original petition, the procedure for preparing a petition provided in Arkansas Code Annotated section 28-65-207 (Repl. 2012)…”
Light v. Duvall, 385 S.W.3d 399 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “The Lights were present at the hearing on July 13, 2010, at which the trial court heard both the Lights’ petition and the Duvalls’ amended petition. Although it appears that the Lights were not served with the Duvalls’ amended petition, they were present at the hearing such that…”
Kantor v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child, 559 S.W.3d 747 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “DHS also says that, because Linda was not entitled to notice under Ark. Code Ann. §§ 28-65-207 (b)(2), 28-1-110, and 28-1-112 (Repl.”
Gray v. Gladney Ctr., 87 S.W.3d 797 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-207 (b)(2) (Supp. 1999).”
Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-207(a)(3): 1 case
Light v. Duvall, 385 S.W.3d 399 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). “The Lights were present at the hearing on July 13, 2010, at which the trial court heard both the Lights’ petition and the Duvalls’ amended petition. Although it appears that the Lights were not served with the Duvalls’ amended petition, they were present at the hearing such that…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-207(b)(2): 2 cases
Finney v. Cook, 94 S.W.3d 333 (Ark. 2002). “Patricia argues that she did not receive the notice required by Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-207 (b)(2) in the manner prescribed in Ark.”
Reagan v. Dodson, 2016 Ark. App. 598 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). “Although Pamela submits that nowhere in the guardianship statutes is there a provision excusing the signature of a litigant or his attorney from the original petition, the procedure for preparing a petition provided in Arkansas Code Annotated section 28-65-207 (Repl. 2012)…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 28-65-207(b)(5): 1 case
Cogburn v. Wolfenbarger, 148 S.W.3d 787 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004). “Cogburn was given notice of the hearing for the appointment of a guardian as required by Ark.Code Ann. § 28-65-207(b)(5) (Supp.1999).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.