Carter v. Cline
2011 Ark. 474
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Carter hired Casey Jones to represent him in a real estate purchase with the Clines for property at 8 Longfellow Place, Little Rock; the June 11, 2006 real estate contract stated a $1,037,500 price subject to financing and required a letter of approval within 10 business days.
- Pulaski Mortgage approved Carter’s loan on June 21, 2006, with conditions including no material change in Carter’s financial condition; an employment certification was required before closing; the approval letter was to be submitted within ten days.
- Carter’s income declined beginning July 2006; on September 8, 2006 Pulaski Mortgage requested updated financial statements; Carter advised Jones of the decline that day.
- On September 18, 2006, the Clines sued Carter for breach of contract; Carter moved for summary judgment in 2007 asserting the financing contingency excused performance; the circuit court denied.
- Carter again sought summary judgment in 2008 arguing there was no meeting of the minds; the circuit court denied; trial commenced August 17, 2009; the jury found breach by Carter and awarded $42,500; Carter’s negligence claims against the Jones Defendants were resolved in his favor with $30,000.
- Post-trial, the circuit court awarded the Clines $85,266 in fees and costs, denied prejudgment interest, granted a new trial for the Jones Defendants, and later entered final judgment awarding the Clines $127,766; Carter sought judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the court denied, leading to the appeal at issue.
- The court ultimately reversed on the breach-of-contract theory, holding the financing-contingency was a condition precedent that was not met, thereby no contract, and remanded for entry of JNOV consistent with this opinion; the Rule 54(b) certification issue was also addressed and upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 54(b) certification was proper | Carter argued certification was improper | Clines argued certification appropriate | Certification not abused; proper under Rule 54(b) |
| Whether there was a binding contract given financing contingency | Carter contested breach due to unmet financing condition | Clines contended financing letter satisfied condition | There was a financing condition precedent not met; no contract; JNOV warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Stacy v. Williams, 38 Ark.App. 192 (Ark. App. 1992) (loan-ability as a condition precedent to performance)
- Johnston v. Curtis, 16 S.W.3d 283 (Ark. App. 2000) (finance contingencies and modified terms before closing)
- ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Draper, 372 Ark. 361 (2008) (standard for directed verdict and JNOV; substantial-evidence review)
- Carr v. Nance, 370 S.W.3d 826 (Ark. 2010) (directed verdict standard; JNOV standard)
- Franklin v. Osea, Inc., 308 Ark. 409 (1992) (Rule 54(b) certification needs factual findings to avoid delay)
- Kowalski v. Rose Drugs of Dardanelle, Inc., 357 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. 2009) (Rule 54(b) findings; no piecemeal appeals)
- Bayird v. Floyd, 344 S.W.3d 80 (Ark. 2009) (review of Rule 54(b) certification; abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Bank of Ark., N.A. v. First Union Nat’l Bank, 30 S.W.3d 110 (Ark. 2000) (no just reason for delay; finality in multi-claim cases)