City of Tontitown v. First Security Bank
2017 Ark. App. 333
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- First Security Bank (the Bank) owned ~38.5 acres in Tontitown: ~8 acres improved commercial; remaining ~30.5 acres unimproved/residential. The Bank wanted detachment from Tontitown and annexation into neighboring Springdale to obtain municipal services.
- Under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-40-2002, a landowner may request a municipality commit in writing to take substantial steps (within 180 days) to provide additional services; failure permits detachment/annexation.
- In August 2014 the Bank requested services (fire, police, ambulance, water/sewer, public road). Tontitown timely sent a written commitment but also stated the services were already available and asked the Bank for a more definite statement of inadequacies. The Bank did not reply.
- The Bank alleged Tontitown’s letter was either not a valid commitment or, if it was, the city failed to take substantial steps within 180 days—particularly to extend water/sewer to the unimproved majority of the property.
- The circuit court granted declaratory relief to the Bank, finding Tontitown’s letter met the written-commitment form but the city failed to take the required substantial steps thereafter. Tontitown appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a declaratory action under the subchapter | Bank: Circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction under §14-40-2004 and may hear landowner petitions | Tontitown: court lacked jurisdiction | Held: Court had subject-matter jurisdiction under §14-40-2004 and prior precedent allowing declaratory review |
| Whether Tontitown’s written response satisfied the statute’s commitment-and-action requirement | Bank: Letter was contradictory and not a valid commitment; or, if valid, city failed to take substantial steps within 180 days | Tontitown: Services were already available; its letter satisfied statutory obligations and requested reasonable clarification | Held: Although letter constituted a written commitment, Tontitown failed to take substantial steps (notably to extend water/sewer to the majority of the land), so statutory duties were not met |
| Whether Tontitown’s request for a “more definite statement” shifted the burden to the Bank to identify deficiencies | Bank: City cannot shift responsibility back to landowner by requesting more detail; city must take steps | Tontitown: Bank failed to comply with the city’s reasonable request for clarification | Held: Request for more definite statement did not shift the onus; city still required to take substantial steps and to work with landowner |
| Whether the circuit court erred in not ruling on Tontitown’s Ark. R. Civ. P. 52(b) motion | Tontitown: Court should have addressed its motion for additional findings | Bank: Motion was untimely | Held: Motion was filed on the eleventh day after judgment (outside ten-day limit) and was untimely, so court did not err in failing to rule on it |
Key Cases Cited
- Perroni v. Sachar, 513 S.W.3d 239 (Ark. 2017) (defines subject-matter jurisdiction principles)
- City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 374 S.W.3d 660 (Ark. 2010) (bench-trial clear-error standard and credibility determinations)
- City of Cave Springs v. City of Rogers, 37 S.W.3d 607 (Ark. 2001) (landowner or municipality may seek declaratory relief under annexation/detachment statutes)
- Middleton v. Lockhart, 388 S.W.3d 451 (Ark. 2012) (Ark. R. Civ. P. 52(b) timing and untimeliness consequences)