05/04/2023
🏛 The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down 1️⃣8️⃣ decisions yesterday.
1️⃣0️⃣ Civil
0️⃣1️⃣ DHS
0️⃣5️⃣ Unemployment
0️⃣2️⃣ Criminal
🔗 Here's a link to the syllabus. https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521900/index.do
Here's a quick rundown of some of the cases.
⚖ Bell v. Bell, 2023 Ark. App. 246 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521883/index.do) Motion to set aside default judgment in a divorce/custody case. Default judgment granted divorce and awarded sole custody to Mom. Dad filed motion to set aside. The Court of Appeals rejected Dad's argument that default was improper because Mom had not filed a written motion for default judgment. Dad had not argued this issue below, so it was not preserved for appeal. The Court of Appeals rejected Dad's argument that this is the type of jurisdictional defect that would make the judgment void (and thus not subject to the normal preservation rules). The Court of Appeals also rejected Dad's argument that allowing a default made the best interests of the child secondary to Dad's error in failing to file an answer. In Jones v. Jones, 2019 Ark. App. 597, 591 S.W.3d 831, the Court of Appeals had set aside a default judgment in a child custody case. But the Court in Jones had rejected the argument that a default judgment in a custody case is *never* appropriate. Here, Dad had had stated in his brief that he had been the child's primary caregiver for 3 years, and his attorney had stated that, but Dad never testified to this. Therefore, the Court of Appeals could not hold that the circuit court abused its discretion.
⚖ Fox v. Alexander, 2023 Ark. App. 247 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521882/index.do) Easement case. Issue was whether the easement was appurtenant to the land. Both parties obtained their land from the same sellers about 2 years apart.
Both deeds contained this language:
"NOTE: Grantor reserves ‘rights to the easement right of way on the East side of property’ as shown on survey by Satterfield Land Surveyors P.A., dated September 3, 2013 as Job No. 39,666 for their use and benefit."
The deed to the neighbor challenging the easement contained language that the property was "[s]ubject to easements, rights-of-way, and protective covenants, if any." The Court of Appeals held this language was "sufficiently uncertain as to warrant looking outside the four corners of the deed," and the circuit court had correctly held, based on additional evidence, that the grantor's intent was for the easement to be appurtenant to the land.
⚖ Grigsby v. Kelly, 2023 Ark. App. 250 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521886/index.do) Family land dispute. Some family members filed a complaint for partition on one piece of land. Other family members filed a counterclaim for partition of additional land, and for a constructive trust. The first family members moved to dismiss the counterclaim based on a statute of limitations argument and also--on the constructive trust claim--failure to state a claim. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the counterclaim, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
⚖ Saul v. Saul, 2023 Ark. App. 251 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521887/index.do) Custody case. Mom and Dad originally shared joint custody under a temporary order. Final order awarded custody to Dad. The circuit court also refused to pierce the corporate veil of Dad's pre-marital businesses. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (applying the clearly erroneous standard of review) affirmed the custody determination, holding that Dad had adequately met his burden of demonstrating why joint custody was not in the child's best interest. Applying the same standard of review, the Court of Appeals also held that the circuit court's decision not to pierce the corporate veil was not clearly erroneous.
⚖ Faughn v. Kennedy, 2023 Ark. App. 252 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521888/index.do) Qualified immunity case; Decided on law-of-the-case grounds. Plaintiffs sued two police officers under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Officers filed motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The circuit court denied the MSJ, and Officers appealed. In that appeal ("Appeal 1"), the Court of Appeals affirmed. In it's opinion in Appeal 1, the Court of Appeals cited, among other cases, a case that had been decided in federal district court. After Appeal 1, that district court case was reversed on appeal to the 8th Circuit. The Officers then filed a second MSJ in the circuit court, which the circuit court denied. Officers appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the law-of-the-case doctrine barred consideration of the Officers' argument, for 2 reasons. First, the Arkansas Supreme Court has expressly denied an exception to the law-of-the case doctrine based on a change in the controlling law. Second, there was no change in the controlling law in this case anyway.
⚖ Spurlock v. Estate of Ladd, 2023 Ark. App. 253 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521889/index.do) Probate case. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting all three of the appellant's arguments. The appellant's arguments were: 1️⃣ The circuit judge should have recused; 2️⃣ The circuit court erred in approving the inventories/accountings; and 3️⃣ The circuit court should have found that the administrator had breached his fiduciary duty.
⚖ Colley v. Colley, 2023 Ark. App. 254 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521890/index.do) Child support case; remanded to settle/supplement the record with the tax returns that the circuit court had considered in making its child support determination.
⚖ Tinney v. Childs, 2023 Ark. App. 255 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521891/index.do) Statute of limitations/savings statute case. Plaintiff filed suit within the statute of limitations, but there was no evidence that Plaintiff attempted to serve Defendant. Plaintiff later dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff refiled within one year, but outside the statute of limitations. Defendant moved to dismiss on statute of limitations grounds, and the circuit court granted the dismissal. On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals held: "Because service was never completed in [Plaintiff's] first cause of action, not even defective service, the lawsuit was never commenced; the three-year statute of limitations ran before the second complaint was filed; and because service was never completed in the first lawsuit, [Plaintiff] was not entitled to the benefit of the savings statute."
⚖ Maner v. Maner, 2023 Ark. App. 256 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521892/index.do) Child support case. Dad had been paying $7,000/month. Dad had moved for modification. Circuit court initially had held that there was no change in circumstances, and the Court of Appeals had reversed. On remand, the circuit court entered an order maintaining child support of $7,000, which was an upward deviation from the chart amount, which was $2,375 per month. The circuit court in its order did address the deviation factors. However, the Court of Appeals held that "all of the factors considered by the circuit court, with the exception of the 'other factors' catch-all provision, are either neutral or favor a downward deviation in child support." Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed, and rather than remand for additional findings, the Court of Appeals set child support at the chart amount of $2,375.
⚖ Christian v. SWO Properties, Inc., 2023 Ark. App. 265 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521899/index.do) Mortgage-default case. Mortgagee filed unlawful detainer action, and ultimately obtained an order granting ejectment and release of certain rental payments. The order denied "all claims and motions not specifically addressed herein." While that case was pending, the Mortgagors filed a lawsuit against Mortgagee for fraud and misrepresentation; declaratory judgment and slander of title; and conversion of property. The circuit court dismissed this second case, and Mortgagors appealed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that res judicata barred the second lawsuit.
There were 5️⃣ unemployment cases. All were reversed/remanded (in favor of employee) for additional findings. The first 4 cases in this list were overpayment cases (and the first 2 of those were companion cases). The last 1 involves whether the claimant is a covered individual.
⚖ Stewart v. Department of Workforce Services, 2023 Ark. App. 248 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521884/index.do)
⚖ Stewart v. Department of Workforce Services, 2023 Ark. App. 262 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521896/index.do)
⚖ Burnett v. Department of Workforce Services, 2023 Ark. App. 259 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521893/index.do)
⚖ Meadough v. Division of Workforce Services, 2023 Ark. App. 260 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521894/index.do)
⚖ Jones v. Department of Workforce Services, 2023 Ark. App. 264 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521898/index.do)
There was 1️⃣ DHS case, which was affirmed: ⚖ Miller v. DHS, 2023 Ark. App. 249 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521885/index.do)
There were 2️⃣ criminal cases, both affirmed:
⚖Bahena v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 261 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521895/index.do)
⚖ Langlois v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 263 (https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/courtofappeals/en/item/521897/index.do)
✅ That's all from the Court of Appeals for this week. As always, these are brief summaries; read the cases for more details.
The official web site for the Arkansas Supreme Court provides information about cases, oral arguments, opinions, orders, dockets, history and technology services that improve public access by supporting Arkansas’s courts and criminal justice agencies.
