Armstrong Remodeling & Construction, LLC v. Cardenas
2012 Ark. App. 387
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- ARC appeals a jury verdict awarding Cardenas $22,018.50; ARC’s individual members were granted summary judgment.
- Cardenas’s home was fire-damaged in July 2009; ARC was hired to rebuild for $118,889.66; Cardenas moved back in before completion and changed the locks.
- Cardenas filed suit April 20, 2010; amended complaint claimed demolition $5,000 and rebuild $55,000, plus incomplete work, negligence, and damages; sought punitive damages.
- In January 2011 the Armstrongs were granted summary judgment; ARC remained as defendant; June 14, 2011, ARC’s limine motion denied and suit proceeded to trial; ARC moved for directed verdict but the court denied it; jury returned verdict for Cardenas.
- Judgment entered June 29, 2011; Armstrongs sought attorney’s fees under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-808; Cardenas sought fees; August 2–3, 2011 orders denied most fee motions; Cardenas was later awarded $9,076 in fees; ARC appeals on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Cardenas claims ARC did not substantially comply; Cardenas kept locks changed and ARCs effort hindered | ARC argues Cardenas prevented completion; Harris requires substantial compliance and hindrance | No reversible error; jury could find ARC failed substantial compliance; issue for jury |
| Denial of motion in limine | Parol evidence should be excluded to enforce contract terms | Ambiguity permits parol evidence; no merger clause; invoices left room for interpretation | No abuse of discretion; parol evidence admissible to resolve ambiguity |
| Jury instructions | Court should have given ARC’s five proffered instructions including price, substantial performance, and parol-evidence rule | AMI Civ. instructions supersede or render proffers unnecessary; no abuse in not giving non-AMI instructions | Court properly refused non-AMI instructions; AMI on point covered substantial topics; no error |
| Attorney’s fees | Armstrongs cannot be prevailing party since Cardenas recovered on ARC; fee denial incorrect | Prevailing party should be considered for the entire case; Armstrongs prevailed on their defense | Cardenas was prevailing overall; circuit court did not err in denying Armstrongs’ fee requests |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Holder, 217 Ark. 434, 230 S.W.2d 645 (1950) (breach not present where performance is prevented; substantial compliance standard)
- ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Draper, 372 Ark. 361, 276 S.W.3d 244 (2008) (substantial evidence standard; jury findings reviewed for sufficiency)
- Roberts Contracting Co. v. Valentine-Wooten Rd. Pub. Facility Bd., 2009 Ark. App. 437, 320 S.W.3d 1 (2009) (substantial completion question for jury)
- Parker v. Holder, 315 Ark. 307, 867 S.W.2d 436 (1993) (abstention from abstract law; evaluation of instructions)
- S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Daggett, 354 Ark. 112, 118 S.W.3d 525 (2003) (standard for error in instruction denial; need for prejudice showing)
- Barnes v. Everett, 351 Ark. 479, 95 S.W.3d 740 (2003) (jury instruction error reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Ferrell v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 291 Ark. 322, 724 S.W.2d 465 (1987) (non-AM I instruction rejection when AMI on point)
- Wharton v. Bray, 250 Ark. 127, 464 S.W.2d 554 (1971) (instruction sufficiency and admissibility considerations)
- Taylor v. Riddell, 320 Ark. 394, 896 S.W.2d 891 (1995) (model instructions preferred when applicable)
- McGraw v. Weeks, 326 Ark. 285, 930 S.W.2d 365 (1996) (instructional error review standards)
- Long v. Lampton, 324 Ark. 511, 922 S.W.2d 692 (1996) (compliance with jury instruction framework)