Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellees brought this suit against the City of Little Rock for just compensation for the taking of Appellees’ property in connection with a modification of the I430/I630 Interchange. After a jury trial, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of Appellees. The City filed a notice of appeal and later filed a motion for extension of time to lodge the record. The circuit court denied the motion for extension. The City subsequently filed a second motion for extension. A special judge granted an extension to lodge the record. Appellees filed an amended and substituted motion to dismiss, contending that the circuit court erred in granting the extension of time because the City did not strictly comply with the requirements of Ark. R. App. P-Civ. 5. The Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, holding that the City failed strictly to comply with Rule 5, and therefore, the circuit court erred in granting the motion for extension of time to file the record. View "City of Little Rock v. Hermitage Dev. Corp." on Justia Law

Appellant entered into a contract with Contractor for the construction of a new home. At some point after the project had begun, the parties had a disagreement, and Appellant ordered that Contractor cease work on the project. Contractor filed a lien on Appellant’s property claiming he was entitled to $25,821 for the labor, services, and materials that he had arranged and for which he had already paid. Contractor then filed this suit praying for judgment in the same amount and requesting that his lien be given priority over Bank, which had provided financing for the construction project. The court temporarily sustained a mechanics’ and materialmen’s lien attached to Appellant’s property. Appellant filed an interlocutory appeal alleging jurisdiction pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 2(a)(5), which provides that an appeal may be taken from an order that sustains an attachment. Because the court’s order in this case was not an attachment within the meaning of this rule, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as an unauthorized interlocutory appeal. View "Denney v. Denney" on Justia Law

Appellant sued Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (SFB) for breach of contract. SFB answered, alleging that Appellant’s claims were spurious and were made for an improper purpose. The circuit court granted summary judgment to SFB, concluding that Appellant had filed a frivolous claim against SFB without proper and reasonable investigation and imposed sanctions in the form of awarding attorney’s fees to SFB. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Appellant was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees because he did not prevail on the issue of his entitlement to the payment of a sum he sought; and (2) because SFB failed to comply with the requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 11 in seeking Rule 11 sanctions, the circuit court erred in imposing Rule 11 sanctions. View "Swindle v. State" on Justia Law

Appellants received a credit card, and Appellee was the assignee of the credit-card account. When the account went unpaid, Appellee filed a complaint seeking a judgment against Appellants. Appellants were served with process. The summons correctly stated the time period in which an in-state defendant and an out-of-state defendant had to file an answer but incorrectly stated the time period in which an incarcerated defendant had to file an answer. Appellants were not incarcerated. When Appellants did not answer the complaint, the circuit court entered a default judgment in favor of Appellee. Appellants filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, arguing that the summons was defective on its face and did not strictly comply with Ark. R. Civ. P. 4 because of the incorrect response time related to incarcerated defendants. In response, Appellee asserted that because Appellants’ response time was correctly listed on the summons, the summons complied with Rule 4. The circuit court denied Appellants’ motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Appellee’s summons contained an incorrect response time, it failed to strictly comply with Rule 4(b), and therefore, service upon Appellants was improper. View "Earls v. Harvest Credit Mgmt. VI-B LLC" on Justia Law

Appellants, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, filed a motion to intervene in a class-action suit filed by Appellees, purchasers of surplus-lines insurance. Named as defendants were Arkansas surplus-lines-insurance brokers. According to Appellees, the defendants improperly placed contracts of insurance with persons who were not insurers approved by the Arkansas Insurance Commissioner. Appellants asserted that they had subscribed to multiple insurance policies issues to Appellees during the relevant time period and that they had significant interests in the suit because Appellees sought to void multiple insurance contracts to which Appellants subscribed as real parties in interest. Appellants also generally denied the allegation of the class-action complaint, including the allegation that the insurance contracts were voidable. The circuit court denied Appellants’ motion to intervene. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in ruling that Appellants were too amorphous to allow intervention; and (2) Appellants met the requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), which must be demonstrated when a party seeks to intervene as a matter of right. View "Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London" on Justia Law

In a per curiam order, the Supreme Court found that court reporter Sheila Russell failed to comply with a writ of certiorari issued by the Court for the completion of the record in the above-captioned case. The Court ordered Russell to appear to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for her failure to comply with the writ. Russell appeared before the Court and entered a plea of not guilty. Accordingly, the Court appointed a special master to conduct a hearing on the matter and to make findings of fact. After a hearing, the special master found that Russell’s failure to comply with the writ was not justified and was contrary to her duties as an official court reporter. The Supreme Court accepted the findings of the special master and held Russell in contempt of court for willfully failing to prepare the instant record in a timely manner and in accordance with the directive of the Court. View "James Tree & Crane Serv., Inc. v. Fought" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court appointed a special master to conduct a hearing and to make findings of fact as to whether court reporter Sheila Russell should be held in contempt for failing to comply with a writ of certiorari issued by the Court. In this order, the Court noted that Russell had not completed the records in other cases and directed the special master to inquire into the status of the record preparation in the other appeals. Thereafter, Marlow Properties LLC and Daria Marlow filed the present motion to intervene in the proceedings before the special master, representing that their appeal was one of the other appeals involving Russell. The Supreme Court denied the motion with prejudice, as the parties’ appeal could not go forward where Marlow Properites failed to lodge the record for appeal within the time provided by the rules. View "James Tree & Crane Serv., Inc. v. Fought" on Justia Law

Harold Planchon filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, but Planchon died before the case was submitted. Planchon’s attorney filed a motion for revivor and substitution or, in the alternative, to remand to the circuit court for entry of such an order. The Supreme Court (1) denied the motion to grant revivor and substitution, as there is no rule governing substitution on appeal; but (2) granted the motion to remand to the circuit court for Planchon’s representatives to seek relief there. View "Planchon v. Local Police & Fire Ret. Sys." on Justia Law

Appellant filed a civil rights complaint against the circuit court clerk and a deputy clerk (together, Defendants) seeking declaratory judgment and money damages. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for Defendants to produce certain documents and a motion for default judgment. The circuit court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on the ground that no summons had been issued or served, and the motions were declared moot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing the complaint where the record on appeal did not reflect that summonses were ever issued or served in this matter. View "Wesley v. Wilkerson" on Justia Law

McHughes Law Firm filed a lawsuit on behalf of Precision Analytics, Inc., McHughes’ client, against Lillie McMullen asserting that McMullen was responsible for a consumer debt incurred on a credit card issued to her ex-husband. After that lawsuit was dismissed, McMullen filed a complaint against McHughes, alleging that McHughes violated the Arkansas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and that McHughes invaded her privacy and engaged in malicious prosecution while attempting to collect on the consumer debt owned by Precision. The circuit court dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that McMullen’s complaint failed to meet the pleading requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) and that McMullen failed to allege facts to establish various elements of her state-law claims. View "McMullen v. McHughes Law Firm" on Justia Law