Dye v. Diamante, a Private Membership Golf Club
2017 Ark. 37
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Class-action property owners (represented by Gary and Linda Dye) challenged enforceability of golf-course "tie-in" rights; Diamante moved to compel arbitration as to unnamed class members.
- In an interlocutory appeal, this court reversed and remanded for the trial court to make threshold findings whether a valid arbitration agreement existed. Diamante, LLC v. Dye, 464 S.W.3d 459.
- The appellate mandate issued June 16, 2015, included an award of $5,091.05 in appellate costs to Diamante under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-7(b); the Dyes moved to recall/amend that mandate and to reconsider costs, and those motions were initially denied.
- On remand the trial court found no valid arbitration agreement and again denied Diamante’s motion to compel arbitration; Diamante then sought to collect the appellate-cost award from the Dyes in the trial court.
- The trial court initially denied entry of judgment for costs but later (April 14, 2016) granted reconsideration and entered judgment for $5,091.05 and allowed a writ of garnishment against Linda Dye.
- The Dyes appealed; the Supreme Court recalled and amended the prior mandate to state each party bears its own costs and held the trial court lacked jurisdiction under Ark. R. Civ. P. 60 to enter the April 2016 order, reversing and dismissing that order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dye) | Defendant's Argument (Diamante) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lost jurisdiction under Rule 60 to alter its December 2015 denial after 90 days | The December 2015 order became final after 90 days; the court lacked jurisdiction to enter the April 2016 order | The trial court must follow and enforce the appellate mandate and could enter judgment for costs | Held: Trial court lacked jurisdiction under Rule 60; April 14, 2016 order reversed and dismissed |
| Whether the appellate mandate properly awarded $5,091.05 to Diamante | It was inequitable to assess costs against Dyes as class representatives; Diamante was not the prevailing party on the interlocutory appeal | The mandate reflected routine application of Rule 6-7(b), allowing appellant to recover set appellate costs upon reversal | Held: Court exercised discretion to recall the mandate and amend it to provide each party bears its own costs (mandate recalled) |
| Whether the trial court could deviate from the appellate mandate when enforcing costs | Dyes argued mandate was erroneous as applied and inequitable; sought recall/amend | Diamante argued the trial court must obey and enforce the mandate as issued | Held: While lower courts cannot deviate from mandates, the Supreme Court recalled and amended its own mandate under extraordinary-but-exercised discretion |
| Whether garnishment writs issued against Dye were proper without a final judgment | Dyes contended garnishment was improper because no valid judgment existed | Diamante relied on the appellate mandate and subsequent trial-court judgment for costs | Held: Court did not reach merits because jurisdictional/timeliness defects controlled; noted appeal on garnishment was untimely and not properly presented |
Key Cases Cited
- Diamante, LLC v. Dye, 464 S.W.3d 459 (Ark. 2015) (reversed and remanded for threshold finding on existence of arbitration agreement)
- Bank of the Ozarks v. Walker, 434 S.W.3d 357 (Ark. 2014) (appellate review of denial/grant of arbitration requires threshold finding that a valid arbitration agreement exists)
- GGNSC Holdings, LLC v. Chappel, 453 S.W.3d 645 (Ark. 2014) (same threshold-finding principle for arbitration rulings)
- Dolphin v. Wilson, 983 S.W.2d 113 (Ark. 1998) (mandate rule: inferior court must follow appellate mandate)
- Henson v. Wyatt, 283 S.W.3d 593 (Ark. 2008) (trial court loses Rule 60 jurisdiction to modify/order after 90 days)