Derrick v. Haynie, 2017 Ark. App. 327

Patricia Derrick rented an office on a month-to-month basis from Ruth Ellen Haynie beginning November 2011 and stored antique-inventory there.
Derrick was personally served on October 29, 2014 with a written Notice of Termination (signed by Haynie’s attorney) directing her to vacate and remove all personal property by December 1, 2014.
Derrick did not remove the inventory; she later claimed she was ill and disputes whether she paid rent for November.
Haynie sold the inventory in early December 2014 (received $3,000 from the subsequent tenant after declining a $1,200 offer from a flea-market owner).
Derrick sued seeking return of the property or $261,000 in conversion damages; Haynie moved for summary judgment relying on Ark. Code Ann. § 18-16-108, which treats property left after lease termination as abandoned and subject to disposal by the lessor.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Haynie; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the termination Notice was proper and lease terminated	Derrick argued the Notice was not appropriate and disputes rent/payment for November	Haynie presented evidence of month-to-month tenancy, prior notice, and Derrick’s receipt of the October 29 Notice directing vacation by Dec. 1	Court held Notice was proper; no evidence Derrick paid or that tenancy continued past Dec. 1, so lease terminated
Whether property left on premises after termination was "abandoned" so Haynie could dispose of it	Derrick argued factual dispute over abandonment and relied on distinctions among lost/mislaid/abandoned property	Haynie relied on Ark. Code Ann. § 18-16-108 declaring property left after lease termination is abandoned and may be disposed without recourse	Court held statute controls: property left after termination is deemed abandoned and Haynie could lawfully dispose of it; no genuine issue of material fact

Mitchell v. Lincoln, 366 Ark. 592, 237 S.W.3d 455 (summary-judgment standard)
Aloha Pools & Spas, Inc. v. Employer’s Ins. of Wausau, 342 Ark. 398, 39 S.W.3d 440 (courts view evidence favorably to nonmoving party on summary judgment)
Lopez v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 427 S.W.3d 154 (appellate review where facts agreed focuses on legal entitlement)
Preston v. Stoops, 373 Ark. 591, 285 S.W.3d 606 (de novo review of legal issues)
Entmeier v. City of Fort Smith, 506 S.W.3d 253 (nonmoving party must "meet proof with proof" to avoid summary judgment)
Terry v. A.D. Lock, 343 Ark. 452, 37 S.W.3d 202 (discusses categories of found property; distinguished here by controlling statute)