627 S.W.3d 430
Ark. Ct. App.2021Background
- Appellant Eddie Watkins III, an incarcerated pro se litigant, sued his uncle Raymond Adams Sr. in Hot Spring County Probate Division, alleging Adams wrongfully took assets belonging to Watkins’s now-deceased mother (assets derived from a wrongful-death settlement distributed via the grandmother’s estate).
- Watkins claimed Adams placed his mother’s settlement funds in Adams’s account, used them to buy a house, furniture, and a 2012 Chevy Sonic, and later emptied the house and retained remaining funds.
- Watkins filed in forma pauperis and submitted motions: (1) petition for a temporary lien/freeze on Adams’s assets, (2) motion for appointment of counsel, (3) motion to order the sheriff to transport the inmate to a hearing, plus motions to amend and for subpoenas; none of these filings were served on Adams.
- The circuit court summarily denied the lien/freeze, appointment-of-counsel, and inmate-presence motions by order dated May 11, 2020; Watkins appealed.
- On appeal, Watkins argued judicial bias/recusal, denial of procedural due process (lack of findings and refusal to order his presence), entitlement to appointed counsel, and other relief; the court rejected these contentions and affirmed.
- The court also considered and denied Adams’s motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous and for sanctions, but dismissed the appeal as to co-appellant Highsmith for lack of authority to proceed on his behalf.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial recusal/bias | Judge Easley is friends with Adams (mayor) and should have recused | No recusal motion was made below; issue not preserved | Not preserved for appeal; no reversible error |
| Procedural due process / findings of fact | Court erred by not explaining denials or issuing findings; should have ordered inmate present for hearing | No hearing had been requested or set; findings not required on motions absent request | No due-process violation; findings unnecessary and none requested; absence of scheduled hearing precluded prejudice |
| Appointment of counsel | Watkins sought appointed counsel for civil action | No absolute right to appointed counsel in civil matters | Denial affirmed; no reversible error |
| Motions to amend/subpoenas & scope of appeal | Watkins sought to add Adams’s wife and subpoena documents | These motions were not ruled on and not included in notice of appeal | Not before appellate court; arguments not considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Neumann v. Smith, 480 S.W.3d 197 (Ark. App. 2016) (timely recusal motion required to preserve judicial-bias claim)
- Terry v. White, 288 S.W.3d 194 (Ark. 2008) (preservation and recusal principles)
- Smith v. Quality Ford, Inc., 920 S.W.2d 497 (Ark. 1996) (failure to request special findings waives right to them)
- Curry v. Pope Cnty. Equalization Bd., 385 S.W.3d 130 (Ark. 2011) (appellate presumption that circuit court made necessary findings absent rule or request)
- Crawford v. Ark. Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 588 S.W.3d 383 (Ark. App. 2019) (same presumption regarding findings)
- Lindsey v. Green, 369 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2010) (issues not listed in notice of appeal or ruled on below are not properly before appellate court)
- Foster v. Foster, 377 S.W.3d 497 (Ark. App. 2010) (procedural rules on appellate review of unresolved motions)
- DeSoto Gathering Co., LLC v. Hill, 541 S.W.3d 415 (Ark. 2018) (claims between same parties may proceed separately when objects differ)