Baptist Memorial Hospital-Forrest City, Inc. v. Neblett
393 S.W.3d 573
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- Hospital sued Dr. Neblett for breach of contract and notes; jury awarded $69,047.52 in damages.
- Neblett received $494,309.93 from hospital under a physician agreement with forgiveness terms tied to full-time practice.
- Forgiveness began three months after the two-year period; dispute centers on whether Neblett ceased full-time practice in Forrest City on Jan 2, 2003.
- Neblett allegedly did not repay the debt or earn forgiveness; hospital claimed breach based on January 2, 2003 breach date.
- Neblett argued continued full-time work in Forrest City and credits toward forgiveness; hospital claimed dissolution of full-time practice.
- Trial court denied prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees; hospital appealed on both points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prejudgment interest is recoverable. | Hospital argues damages were ascertainable on breach date. | Neblett contends damages not ascertainable; forgiveness affects the amount. | Denied; damages not ascertainable at time of loss. |
| Entitlement to attorney’s fees. | Hospital seeks fees under contract, 16-22-308, or 4-56-101. | Neblett argues no clear basis; defenses show mixed outcome. | Promissory-note language requires mandatory attorney’s fees; remand for fee award. |
| Whether other fee statutes apply or are necessary to consider. | Hospital may rely on 16-22-308 or 4-56-101. | These grounds unnecessary given contract-language basis. | Court declined to reach alternative grounds; focus on contractual fee provision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pro-Comp Mgmt., Inc. v. R.K. Enters., LLC, 372 Ark. 190 (2008) (prejudgment interest depends on ascertainability of damages)
- Mitcham v. First State Bank of Crossett, 333 Ark. 598 (1998) (damages not capable of exact determination bar prejudgment interest)
- Marcum v. Wengert, 344 Ark. 153 (2001) (contractual attorney’s fees may be mandatory where language uses 'shall')
- Griffin v. First Nat’l Bank, 888 S.W.2d 306 (1994) (promissory-note fees recoverable independent of 16-22-308)
- Loewer v. Nat’l Bank of Ark., 844 S.W.2d 329 (1992) (fees authorized under promissory-note provisions)
- First Nat’l Bank of Brinkley v. Nash, 617 S.W.2d 24 (1981) (fee recovery under promissory-note provisions)
- Nef v. Ag Servs. of Am., Inc., 86 S.W.3d 4 (2002) (notes may authorize reasonable attorney’s fees independent of statutes)