Joseph Henry IV v. Jill Pierce

── Joseph Henry IV v. Jill Pierce ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: March 18, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 194 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-25-218 JOSEPH HENRY IV Opinion Delivered March 18, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FORT V. SMITH DISTRICT [NO. 66FPR-20-432] JILL PIERCE APPELLEE HONORABLE ANNIE POWELL HENDRICKS, JUDGE AFFIRMED CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge Appellant Joseph Henry IV seeks reversal of the order of the Sebastian County Circuit Court granting a contingency fee to the attorney of appellee, Jill Pierce, arguing that the fee agreement was erroneously entered into evidence. We affirm. This case began as a probate matter. In August 2020, Jill Pierce filed a petition for appointment as administratrix of the estate of her late father, John Minnis. Henry, her brother, initially consented to her appointment, and Pierce was appointed administratrix in October 2020. No action was taken in the case, however, and the Sebastian County Circuit Court entered an order on February 22, 2024, closing the case. On May 30, 2024, Henry petitioned to reopen the estate; for an accounting, inventory, and constructive trust; and to withdraw his consent to Pierce’s appointment. In his petition, he alleged that Pierce had insured real property belonging to the estate in her individual name and, after that property was destroyed in a fire, collected and retained the insurance proceeds. He asked the court to order an inventory and accounting from Pierce, the interpleader of any funds received by Pierce that belonged to the estate, a constructive trust over property and funds belonging to the estate, and for the court to hold a show-cause hearing for Pierce to explain why she should not be held in contempt. 1 Meanwhile, in a filing under the same probate docket number, the Buckley Firm moved for attorney’s fees relating to its representation of Pierce in the insurance case. This motion explained that Pierce had an insurance policy with State Farm Fire and Casualty Company that covered a house in Fort Smith. The house was damaged in two separate fires, and Pierce turned to State Farm for coverage. After State Farm “failed to compensate [Pierce] fully for the damages to [the] home,” Pierce contracted with the Buckley Firm to pursue a claim against State Farm. The contract between Pierce and the Buckley Firm provided that Pierce would pay the law firm 33 1/3 percent of any sums collected if the matter did not proceed to litigation and 40 percent of all sums collected “in the event that this matter proceeds to filing a lawsuit.” The Buckley Firm, on Pierce’s behalf, eventually filed a breach- of-contract complaint against State Farm, and State Farm eventually paid $55,112.73 to settle 1 The circuit court subsequently entered an order directing Pierce to account for all personal property and money that passed or should have passed through the estate; found her in contempt of court and ordered her jailed until such time as she appeared in court or accounted for the funds; and removed her as administratrix of the estate. 2 the litigation. Therefore, under the terms of the attorney-client contract with Pierce, the Buckley Firm sought payment of its attorney’s fees in the amount of $22,045.09, representing 40 percent of Pierce’s recovery against State Farm, plus costs. 2 Henry responded to the Buckley Firm’s motion for attorney’s fees, stating that he did