Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Benton County Circuit Court
Brenda DeShields, Circuit Clerk
2023-Oct-11 12:46:22
04CV-23-2303
C19WD04 : 14 Pages
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BENTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS
CIVIL DIVISION
KRISTEN SINCLAIR,
Personal Representative of
THE ESTATE OF RICKY LYNN SINCLAIR PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 04CV-23-2303
JENNIFER ANN POOLE and
MARY COCKRELL DEFENDANTS
ANSWER
Defendants, Jennifer Poole and Mary Cockrell (together, “Defendants”), by and through
their attorneys Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Woodard, & Gates, PLLC, for their Answer to Plaintiff
Kristen Sinclair’s, Personal Representative of the Estate of Ricky Lynn Sinclair, Complaint and
Request for Injunctive Relief, state as follows:
1. Defendants affirmatively state that Exhibit A speaks for itself, and Defendants deny
the allegations included in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent therewith.
Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations
in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same.
2. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
3. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
4. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
5. Defendants admit that this Court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter
hereto and that venue is proper.
6. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
7. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
8. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint.
9. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
10. Defendants affirmatively state that the Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the
Person and Estate and Request for Emergency Relief attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B speaks
for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint to the
extent inconsistent with Exhibit B.
11. Defendants affirmatively state that the Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the
Person and Estate and Request for Emergency Relief attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B speaks
for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint to the
extent inconsistent with Exhibit B.
12. Defendants affirmatively state that the Ex Parte Order attached to the Complaint as
Exhibit C speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 12 of the
Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit C.
13. Defendants affirmatively state that the Motion to Intervene attached to the
Complaint as Exhibit D speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph
13 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit D.
14. Defendants affirmatively state that the Temporary Order attached to the Complaint
as Exhibit E speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 14 of the
Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit E.
15. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the
allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same.
16. Defendants affirmatively state that the Notice of Withdrawal of Counter-Petition
for Appointment of Guardian of the Person and Estate filed in the Matter of Ricky Lynn Sinclair,
2
an Incapacitated Person (filed Oct. 15, 2022), 04PR-22-938, Benton County Probate Division,
speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint to
the extent inconsistent with that Notice of Withdrawal.
17. Defendants affirmatively state that the Temporary Order attached to the Complaint
as Exhibit E speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 17 of the
Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit E.
18. Defendants deny as written the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
19. Defendants affirmatively state that the Order Appointing Guardian attached to the
Complaint as Exhibit F speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph
19 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit F.
20. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint.
21. Defendants affirmatively state that Exhibit G speaks for itself. Defendants deny
any remaining allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit
G. Defendants affirmatively state that Mary Cockrell did not breach her fiduciary duty as Ricky
Sinclair’s guardian.
22. Defendants affirmatively state that the IRA Application attached to the Complaint
as Exhibit H speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 22 of the
Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit H. Defendants affirmatively state that Ricky
Sinclair consented to and signed Exhibit H.
23. Defendants affirmatively state that the IRA Application attached to the Complaint
as Exhibit H speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 23 of the
Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit H.
3
24. Defendants affirmatively state that the Account Supplement attached to the
Complaint as Exhibit I speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph
24 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit I. Defendants affirmatively state that
Ricky Sinclair consented to Exhibit I.
25. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
26. Defendants affirmatively state that the Transfers on Death Account Registration
Request Form attached to the Complaint as Exhibit J speaks for itself. Defendants deny any
remaining allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit J.
Defendants affirmatively state that Ricky Sinclair consented to and signed Exhibit J.
27. Defendants affirmatively state that the Account Supplement attached to the
Complaint as Exhibit K speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph
27 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit K. Defendants affirmatively state that
Ricky Sinclair consented to Exhibit K.
28. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
29. Defendants affirmatively state that the Transfers on Death Account Registration
Request Form attached to the Complaint as Exhibit L speaks for itself. Defendants deny any
remaining allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit L.
Defendants affirmatively state that Ricky Sinclair consented to and signed Exhibit L.
30. Defendants affirmatively state that Exhibits H, J, and L speak for themselves.
Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 30 of the Complaint to the extent
inconsistent with those exhibits. Defendants affirmatively state that Ricky Sinclair proposed to
Jennifer Poole on September 11, 2022.
4
31. Defendants affirmatively state that the Last Will and Testament of Ricky L. Sinclair
attached to the Complaint as Exhibit M speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining
allegations of Paragraph 31 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit M. Defendants
specifically deny any allegation in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint that Ricky Sinclair lacked the
required testamentary capacity to execute the Last Will and Testament.
32. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint.
33. Defendants affirmatively state that the Motion to Terminate Guardianship attached
to the Complaint as Exhibit N speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of
Paragraph 33 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit N.
34. Defendants affirmatively state that the Motion to Terminate Guardianship attached
to the Complaint as Exhibit N speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of
Paragraph 34 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit N.
35. Defendants affirmatively state that the docket in the Matter of Ricky Lynn Sinclair,
an Incapacitated Person, 04PR-22-938, Benton County Probate Division, speaks for itself.
Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 35 of the Complaint to the extent
inconsistent with the docket in Ricky Sinclair’s guardianship case.
36. Defendants affirmatively state that the Order Terminating Guardianship attached to
the Complaint as Exhibit O speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of
Paragraph 36 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit O.
37. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, it is
admitted that Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 35. However,
unless specifically admitted hereinabove, each of those allegations are denied.
5
38. Defendants admit that Separate Defendant Mary Cockrell had a duty to Ricky
Sinclair as his guardian pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 28-65-301. Defendants
affirmatively state that Arkansas Code Annotated § 28-65-301 speaks for itself, and Defendants
deny the allegations included in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent therewith.
39. Defendants admit that Separate Defendant Mary Cockrell had a duty to Ricky
Sinclair as his guardian pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 28-65-301. Defendants
affirmatively state that Arkansas Code Annotated § 28-65-301 speaks for itself, and Defendants
deny the allegations included in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent therewith.
40. Defendants admit that Separate Defendant Mary Cockrell had a duty to Ricky
Sinclair as his guardian pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 28-65-301. Defendants
affirmatively state that Arkansas Code Annotated § 28-65-301 speaks for itself, and Defendants
deny the allegations included in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent therewith.
41. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint.
42. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint.
43. Defendants admit that Separate Defendant Mary Cockrell managed Ricky
Sinclair’s financial assets while his guardian. Defendants deny any allegation in Paragraph 43 of
the Complaint that Separate Defendant Mary Cockrell breached her fiduciary duty to Ricky
Sinclair. Defendants affirmatively state that the Motion to Terminate Guardianship attached to the
Complaint as Exhibit N speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph
43 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit N.
44. Defendants affirmatively state that the docket in the Matter of Ricky Lynn Sinclair,
an Incapacitated Person, 04PR-22-938, Benton County Probate Division, speaks for itself.
Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 44 of the Complaint to the extent
6
inconsistent with the docket in Ricky Sinclair’s guardianship case. Defendants affirmatively state
that Separate Defendant Mary Cockrell did not breach her fiduciary duty as Ricky Sinclair’s
guardian.
45. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint.
46. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint. Defendants deny
that they are liable to Plaintiff under any theory of liability and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any
damages.
47. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, it is
admitted that Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 46. However,
unless specifically admitted hereinabove, each of those allegations are denied.
48. Defendants affirmatively state that the docket in the Matter of Ricky Lynn Sinclair,
an Incapacitated Person, 04PR-22-938, Benton County Probate Division, speaks for itself.
Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 48 of the Complaint to the extent
inconsistent with the docket in Ricky Sinclair’s guardianship case.
49. Paragraph 49 contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the
extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
50. Defendants deny that Ricky Sinclair signed the Transfers on Death Account
Registration Request Form for the TD Ameritrade account ending in 2346, attached as Exhibit L
to the Complaint, before the guardianship was terminated. Defendants admit that, prior to the
termination of Ricky Sinclair’s guardianship, he signed the remaining change of beneficiary
designation on his TD Ameritrade account, opened new investment accounts with Mach 1
Financial Group and designated beneficiaries of the accounts, executed a Last Will and Testament,
and executed a Power of Attorney. Defendants further deny any allegation that Ricky Sinclair
7
lacked the requisite mental capacity to execute any of the documents referenced in Paragraph 49
of the Complaint.
51. Defendants admit that Separate Defendant Jennifer Poole was Ricky Sinclair’s
girlfriend and then fiancé, that she lived with him before the accident on August 4, 2022, and that
she assisted with his care after the accident. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
Paragraph 51 of the Complaint.
52. Defendants affirmatively state that Exhibits H, J, and L attached to the Complaint
speak for themselves. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 52 of the
Complaint to the extent inconsistent with those exhibits.
53. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint.
54. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint, it is
admitted that Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 53. However,
unless specifically admitted hereinabove, each of those allegations are denied.
55. Paragraph 55 contains statements of Arkansas law to which no response is required.
To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the
Complaint.
56. Paragraph 56 contains statements of Arkansas law to which no response is required.
To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the
Complaint.
57. Defendants admit that Separate Defendant Jennifer Poole was Ricky Sinclair’s
girlfriend and then fiancé, that she lived with him before the accident on August 4, 2022, and that
she assisted with his care after the accident. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in
Paragraph 57 of the Complaint.
8
58. Defendants admit that Ricky Sinclair consented to and signed the change of
beneficiary designation with the TD Ameritrade account after the accident on August 4, 2022.
Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint.
59. Defendants affirmatively state that Exhibits H, J, and L attached to the Complaint
speak for themselves. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 59 of the
Complaint to the extent inconsistent with those exhibits.
60. Defendants admit that Ricky Sinclair consented to and signed the beneficiary
designation of accounts managed by Mach 1 Financial Group after the accident on August 4, 2022.
Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Complaint.
61. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint.
62. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint.
63. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, it is
admitted that Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 62. However,
unless specifically admitted hereinabove, each of those allegations are denied.
64. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint.
65. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint.
66. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint.
67. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint.
68. The Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction
on October 2, 2023, and, therefore, no response is required to Paragraph 68 of the Complaint. To
the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 68 of the
Complaint.
9
69. The Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction
on October 2, 2023, and, therefore, no response is required to Paragraph 69 of the Complaint. To
the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 69 of the
Complaint.
70. The Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction
on October 2, 2023, and, therefore, no response is required to Paragraph 70 of the Complaint. To
the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the
Complaint.
71. The Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction
on October 2, 2023, and, therefore, no response is required to Paragraph 71 of the Complaint. To
the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the
Complaint.
72. The Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction
on October 2, 2023, and, therefore, no response is required to Paragraph 72 of the Complaint. To
the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the
Complaint.
73. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 73 of the Complaint, it is
admitted that Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 72. However,
unless specifically admitted hereinabove, each of those allegations are denied.
74. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 74 of the
Complaint.
75. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 75 of the
Complaint.
10
76. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 76 of the
Complaint.
77. Paragraph 77 does not contain an allegation that requires a response. To the extent
a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 77
78. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 78 of the
Complaint.
79. The Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction
on October 2, 2023, and, therefore, no response is required to Paragraph 79 of the Complaint. To
the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in
Paragraph 79 of the Complaint.
80. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 80 of the
Complaint.
81. The Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction
on October 2, 2023, and, therefore, no response is required to Paragraph 81 of the Complaint. To
the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in
Paragraph 81 of the Complaint.
82. Defendants deny Plaintiff is entitled to the relief set out in the “WHEREFORE”
Paragraph of the Complaint.
83. Defendants deny each and every allegation in the Complaint not specifically
admitted herein.
84. Defendants plead affirmatively that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.
11
85. Defendants plead affirmatively that Ricky Sinclair consented to Exhibits H, I, J, K,
and L and that Ricky Sinclair signed Exhibits H, J, and L.
86. Defendants plead affirmatively that Kristen Sinclair lacks standing to bring the
Complaint because Separate Defendant Jennifer Poole filed a separate probate action based on
Ricky Sinclair’s Last Will and Testament that appoints Jennifer Poole as the administrator of Ricky
Sinclair’s Estate and Ronnie Anderson as the successor administrator.
87. Defendants plead affirmatively that Kristen Sinclair does not have authority as the
Personal Representative of the Estate of Ricky Lynn Sinclair to bring this lawsuit without prior
approval from Court in the probate case, pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 28-48-108.
88. Defendants plead affirmatively that Kristen Sinclair has failed to allege facts that
show that Separate Defendant Jennifer Poole had a confidential relationship with Ricky Sinclair.
89. Defendants plead affirmatively that Kristen Sinclair has failed to allege facts that
show that Separate Defendant Jennifer Poole took advantage of the alleged confidential
relationship to procure the beneficiary designations with Mach 1 Financial Group and the TD
Ameritrade accounts.
90. Defendants specifically incorporate by reference all standards of limitations
regarding the determination and enforceability of punitive damage awards as set forth in the
decisions of State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003); BMW of North America v. Gore, 517
U.S. 559 (1996); and Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001),
together with all such standards applicable under state law.
91. Defendants affirmatively assert that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to
justify an award of punitive damages.
12
92. Separate Defendants affirmatively assert that Plaintiff should be required to prove
damages with specificity as required under pertinent law.
93. Defendants reserve the right to plead any and all defenses available to them under
Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure 8(c) and 12(b).
94. Upon completion of further investigation and discovery, Defendants expressly
reserves the right to plead further including, but not limited to, the reservation of all affirmative
defenses required to be pled in their initial pleadings and/or the assertion of a counterclaim or third
party complaint.
WHEREFORE, Defendants Jennifer Ann Poole and Mary Cockrell respectfully request
that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, for their costs and attorneys’ fees, and for
all other just and proper relief to which they are entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/Blake Z. Brizzolara________
CAROLINE W. KELLEY, ABA #2018067
BLAKE Z. BRIZZOLARA, ABA#2017229
MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG,
GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
Attorney for Defendants
4206 South J.B. Hunt Dr, Ste. 200
Rogers, AR 72758
(479) 464-5688
Ckelley @ mwlaw.com
Bbrizzolara@ mwlaw.com
13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this 11th day of October 2023, the foregoing document was electronically filed with
the Clerk of the Court by using the electronic filing system. A notice of electronic filing was sent
to the following:
Dustin A. Duke
Katie Freeman
AR Law Partners, PLLC
/s/ Blake Z. Brizzolara
Blake Z. Brizzolara
14
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Benton County Circuit Court Brenda DeShields, Circuit Clerk 2023-Oct-11 12:46:22 04CV-23-2303 C19WD04 : 14 Pages IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BENTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS CIVIL DIVISION KRISTEN SINCLAIR, Personal Representative of THE ESTATE OF RICKY LYNN SINCLAIR PLAINTIFF CASE NO. 04CV-23-2303 JENNIFER ANN POOLE and MARY COCKRELL DEFENDANTS ANSWER Defendants, Jennifer Poole and Mary Cockrell (together, “Defendants”), by and through their attorneys Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Woodard, & Gates, PLLC, for their Answer to Plaintiff Kristen Sinclair’s, Personal Representative of the Estate of Ricky Lynn Sinclair, Complaint and Request for Injunctive Relief, state as follows: 1. Defendants affirmatively state that Exhibit A speaks for itself, and Defendants deny the allegations included in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent therewith. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same. 2. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. 3. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint. 4. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint. 5. Defendants admit that this Court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter hereto and that venue is proper. 6. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint. 7. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint. 8. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Complaint. 9. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the Complaint. 10. Defendants affirmatively state that the Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person and Estate and Request for Emergency Relief attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit B. 11. Defendants affirmatively state that the Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person and Estate and Request for Emergency Relief attached to the Complaint as Exhibit B speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit B. 12. Defendants affirmatively state that the Ex Parte Order attached to the Complaint as Exhibit C speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit C. 13. Defendants affirmatively state that the Motion to Intervene attached to the Complaint as Exhibit D speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit D. 14. Defendants affirmatively state that the Temporary Order attached to the Complaint as Exhibit E speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit E. 15. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint and therefore deny the same. 16. Defendants affirmatively state that the Notice of Withdrawal of Counter-Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person and Estate filed in the Matter of Ricky Lynn Sinclair, 2 an Incapacitated Person (filed Oct. 15, 2022), 04PR-22-938, Benton County Probate Division, speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with that Notice of Withdrawal. 17. Defendants affirmatively state that the Temporary Order attached to the Complaint as Exhibit E speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit E. 18. Defendants deny as written the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Complaint. 19. Defendants affirmatively state that the Order Appointing Guardian attached to the Complaint as Exhibit F speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit F. 20. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. 21. Defendants affirmatively state that Exhibit G speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit G. Defendants affirmatively state that Mary Cockrell did not breach her fiduciary duty as Ricky Sinclair’s guardian. 22. Defendants affirmatively state that the IRA Application attached to the Complaint as Exhibit H speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit H. Defendants affirmatively state that Ricky Sinclair consented to and signed Exhibit H. 23. Defendants affirmatively state that the IRA Application attached to the Complaint as Exhibit H speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 23 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit H. 3 24. Defendants affirmatively state that the Account Supplement attached to the Complaint as Exhibit I speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit I. Defendants affirmatively state that Ricky Sinclair consented to Exhibit I. 25. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint. 26. Defendants affirmatively state that the Transfers on Death Account Registration Request Form attached to the Complaint as Exhibit J speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 26 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit J. Defendants affirmatively state that Ricky Sinclair consented to and signed Exhibit J. 27. Defendants affirmatively state that the Account Supplement attached to the Complaint as Exhibit K speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 27 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit K. Defendants affirmatively state that Ricky Sinclair consented to Exhibit K. 28. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint. 29. Defendants affirmatively state that the Transfers on Death Account Registration Request Form attached to the Complaint as Exhibit L speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 29 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit L. Defendants affirmatively state that Ricky Sinclair consented to and signed Exhibit L. 30. Defendants affirmatively state that Exhibits H, J, and L speak for themselves. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 30 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with those exhibits. Defendants affirmatively state that Ricky Sinclair proposed to Jennifer Poole on September 11, 2022. 4 31. Defendants affirmatively state that the Last Will and Testament of Ricky L. Sinclair attached to the Complaint as Exhibit M speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 31 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit M. Defendants specifically deny any allegation in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint that Ricky Sinclair lacked the required testamentary capacity to execute the Last Will and Testament. 32. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint. 33. Defendants affirmatively state that the Motion to Terminate Guardianship attached to the Complaint as Exhibit N speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 33 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit N. 34. Defendants affirmatively state that the Motion to Terminate Guardianship attached to the Complaint as Exhibit N speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 34 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit N. 35. Defendants affirmatively state that the docket in the Matter of Ricky Lynn Sinclair, an Incapacitated Person, 04PR-22-938, Benton County Probate Division, speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 35 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with the docket in Ricky Sinclair’s guardianship case. 36. Defendants affirmatively state that the Order Terminating Guardianship attached to the Complaint as Exhibit O speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 36 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit O. 37. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint, it is admitted that Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 35. However, unless specifically admitted hereinabove, each of those allegations are denied. 5 38. Defendants admit that Separate Defendant Mary Cockrell had a duty to Ricky Sinclair as his guardian pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 28-65-301. Defendants affirmatively state that Arkansas Code Annotated § 28-65-301 speaks for itself, and Defendants deny the allegations included in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent therewith. 39. Defendants admit that Separate Defendant Mary Cockrell had a duty to Ricky Sinclair as his guardian pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 28-65-301. Defendants affirmatively state that Arkansas Code Annotated § 28-65-301 speaks for itself, and Defendants deny the allegations included in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent therewith. 40. Defendants admit that Separate Defendant Mary Cockrell had a duty to Ricky Sinclair as his guardian pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 28-65-301. Defendants affirmatively state that Arkansas Code Annotated § 28-65-301 speaks for itself, and Defendants deny the allegations included in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent therewith. 41. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint. 42. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint. 43. Defendants admit that Separate Defendant Mary Cockrell managed Ricky Sinclair’s financial assets while his guardian. Defendants deny any allegation in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint that Separate Defendant Mary Cockrell breached her fiduciary duty to Ricky Sinclair. Defendants affirmatively state that the Motion to Terminate Guardianship attached to the Complaint as Exhibit N speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 43 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with Exhibit N. 44. Defendants affirmatively state that the docket in the Matter of Ricky Lynn Sinclair, an Incapacitated Person, 04PR-22-938, Benton County Probate Division, speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 44 of the Complaint to the extent 6 inconsistent with the docket in Ricky Sinclair’s guardianship case. Defendants affirmatively state that Separate Defendant Mary Cockrell did not breach her fiduciary duty as Ricky Sinclair’s guardian. 45. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint. 46. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Complaint. Defendants deny that they are liable to Plaintiff under any theory of liability and deny that Plaintiff is entitled to any damages. 47. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, it is admitted that Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 46. However, unless specifically admitted hereinabove, each of those allegations are denied. 48. Defendants affirmatively state that the docket in the Matter of Ricky Lynn Sinclair, an Incapacitated Person, 04PR-22-938, Benton County Probate Division, speaks for itself. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 48 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with the docket in Ricky Sinclair’s guardianship case. 49. Paragraph 49 contains legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint. 50. Defendants deny that Ricky Sinclair signed the Transfers on Death Account Registration Request Form for the TD Ameritrade account ending in 2346, attached as Exhibit L to the Complaint, before the guardianship was terminated. Defendants admit that, prior to the termination of Ricky Sinclair’s guardianship, he signed the remaining change of beneficiary designation on his TD Ameritrade account, opened new investment accounts with Mach 1 Financial Group and designated beneficiaries of the accounts, executed a Last Will and Testament, and executed a Power of Attorney. Defendants further deny any allegation that Ricky Sinclair 7 lacked the requisite mental capacity to execute any of the documents referenced in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint. 51. Defendants admit that Separate Defendant Jennifer Poole was Ricky Sinclair’s girlfriend and then fiancé, that she lived with him before the accident on August 4, 2022, and that she assisted with his care after the accident. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint. 52. Defendants affirmatively state that Exhibits H, J, and L attached to the Complaint speak for themselves. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 52 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with those exhibits. 53. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint. 54. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint, it is admitted that Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 53. However, unless specifically admitted hereinabove, each of those allegations are denied. 55. Paragraph 55 contains statements of Arkansas law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint. 56. Paragraph 56 contains statements of Arkansas law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint. 57. Defendants admit that Separate Defendant Jennifer Poole was Ricky Sinclair’s girlfriend and then fiancé, that she lived with him before the accident on August 4, 2022, and that she assisted with his care after the accident. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Complaint. 8 58. Defendants admit that Ricky Sinclair consented to and signed the change of beneficiary designation with the TD Ameritrade account after the accident on August 4, 2022. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint. 59. Defendants affirmatively state that Exhibits H, J, and L attached to the Complaint speak for themselves. Defendants deny any remaining allegations of Paragraph 59 of the Complaint to the extent inconsistent with those exhibits. 60. Defendants admit that Ricky Sinclair consented to and signed the beneficiary designation of accounts managed by Mach 1 Financial Group after the accident on August 4, 2022. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Complaint. 61. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Complaint. 62. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint. 63. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, it is admitted that Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 62. However, unless specifically admitted hereinabove, each of those allegations are denied. 64. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Complaint. 65. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Complaint. 66. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint. 67. Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the Complaint. 68. The Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction on October 2, 2023, and, therefore, no response is required to Paragraph 68 of the Complaint. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint. 9 69. The Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction on October 2, 2023, and, therefore, no response is required to Paragraph 69 of the Complaint. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 69 of the Complaint. 70. The Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction on October 2, 2023, and, therefore, no response is required to Paragraph 70 of the Complaint. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint. 71. The Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction on October 2, 2023, and, therefore, no response is required to Paragraph 71 of the Complaint. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint. 72. The Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction on October 2, 2023, and, therefore, no response is required to Paragraph 72 of the Complaint. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint. 73. In response to the allegations contained in Paragraph 73 of the Complaint, it is admitted that Plaintiff re-alleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 72. However, unless specifically admitted hereinabove, each of those allegations are denied. 74. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 74 of the Complaint. 75. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 75 of the Complaint. 10 76. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 76 of the Complaint. 77. Paragraph 77 does not contain an allegation that requires a response. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations in Paragraph 77 78. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 78 of the Complaint. 79. The Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction on October 2, 2023, and, therefore, no response is required to Paragraph 79 of the Complaint. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 79 of the Complaint. 80. Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 80 of the Complaint. 81. The Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction on October 2, 2023, and, therefore, no response is required to Paragraph 81 of the Complaint. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 81 of the Complaint. 82. Defendants deny Plaintiff is entitled to the relief set out in the “WHEREFORE” Paragraph of the Complaint. 83. Defendants deny each and every allegation in the Complaint not specifically admitted herein. 84. Defendants plead affirmatively that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 11 85. Defendants plead affirmatively that Ricky Sinclair consented to Exhibits H, I, J, K, and L and that Ricky Sinclair signed Exhibits H, J, and L. 86. Defendants plead affirmatively that Kristen Sinclair lacks standing to bring the Complaint because Separate Defendant Jennifer Poole filed a separate probate action based on Ricky Sinclair’s Last Will and Testament that appoints Jennifer Poole as the administrator of Ricky Sinclair’s Estate and Ronnie Anderson as the successor administrator. 87. Defendants plead affirmatively that Kristen Sinclair does not have authority as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Ricky Lynn Sinclair to bring this lawsuit without prior approval from Court in the probate case, pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 28-48-108. 88. Defendants plead affirmatively that Kristen Sinclair has failed to allege facts that show that Separate Defendant Jennifer Poole had a confidential relationship with Ricky Sinclair. 89. Defendants plead affirmatively that Kristen Sinclair has failed to allege facts that show that Separate Defendant Jennifer Poole took advantage of the alleged confidential relationship to procure the beneficiary designations with Mach 1 Financial Group and the TD Ameritrade accounts. 90. Defendants specifically incorporate by reference all standards of limitations regarding the determination and enforceability of punitive damage awards as set forth in the decisions of State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003); BMW of North America v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996); and Cooper Industries, Inc. v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001), together with all such standards applicable under state law. 91. Defendants affirmatively assert that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to justify an award of punitive damages. 12 92. Separate Defendants affirmatively assert that Plaintiff should be required to prove damages with specificity as required under pertinent law. 93. Defendants reserve the right to plead any and all defenses available to them under Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure 8(c) and 12(b). 94. Upon completion of further investigation and discovery, Defendants expressly reserves the right to plead further including, but not limited to, the reservation of all affirmative defenses required to be pled in their initial pleadings and/or the assertion of a counterclaim or third party complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants Jennifer Ann Poole and Mary Cockrell respectfully request that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, for their costs and attorneys’ fees, and for all other just and proper relief to which they are entitled. Respectfully submitted, By: /s/Blake Z. Brizzolara________ CAROLINE W. KELLEY, ABA #2018067 BLAKE Z. BRIZZOLARA, ABA#2017229 MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. Attorney for Defendants 4206 South J.B. Hunt Dr, Ste. 200 Rogers, AR 72758 (479) 464-5688 Ckelley @ mwlaw.com Bbrizzolara@ mwlaw.com 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this 11th day of October 2023, the foregoing document was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court by using the electronic filing system. A notice of electronic filing was sent to the following: Dustin A. Duke Katie Freeman AR Law Partners, PLLC /s/ Blake Z. Brizzolara Blake Z. Brizzolara 14