Furnas v. Kimbrell, 464 S.W.3d 116

Background

Fountain Lake and Eureka Springs school districts sued the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) after ADE withheld/distributed certain school funding, asserting ADE improperly recouped URT-related amounts and withheld other appropriated funds.
The dispute centered on (1) whether ADE could redistribute URT revenues collected in excess of statutory "foundation funding," and (2) whether the districts were entitled to 98% guaranteed URT adjustment funds (state general-revenue supplement).
The trial court (1) enjoined ADE from recouping excess URT revenue from districts and (2) ordered release of withheld categorical funds, but expressly denied relief for 98% URT adjustment funds and declined to hold ADE in contempt.
On the first appeal this Court held ADE lacked authority to redistribute excess URT revenue, budgets that counted excess URT were not deficient, and URT is not a state ad valorem tax; the 98% adjustment issue was not decided in the opinion.
On remand the districts sought a mandatory order requiring ADE to disburse $615,439 in appropriated 98% URT adjustment funds for 2010–2011 and 2011–2012; the circuit court found it lacked jurisdiction under the mandate/law-of-the-case to grant that relief and denied reconsideration.
The districts appealed; this opinion affirms the circuit court, concluding the 98%-adjustment claim was not decided on appeal, was not preserved as an appellate argument, and thus was barred by law-of-the-case.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the remand mandate required the circuit court to order ADE to disburse 98% guaranteed URT adjustment funds	Mandate’s requirement to disburse “any and all withheld funds” necessarily included 98% URT adjustment funds; remand left circuit court authority to implement that relief	First-appeal mandate/opinion did not direct disbursement of 98% adjustment funds; issue was not decided on appeal and therefore circuit court lacked authority to grant it on remand	Denied — court held the mandate did not direct payment; circuit court lacked authority to grant relief on an issue not decided on appeal
Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine barred relitigation of entitlement to 98% URT adjustment funds on remand	Districts: issue was argued below and in appellate record and thus not waived; law-of-the-case should not bar relief	ADE: districts did not challenge the trial court’s adverse ruling on 98% funds in the first appeal; doctrine bars raising issues already decided or that could have been appealed	Held that law-of-the-case bars the districts: they did not appeal the contempt-order denial re: 98% funds, so the issue is barred
Whether Act 557 of 2013 (amending § 6-20-2305) moots or negates ADE’s obligation to pay prior-year 98% adjustment funds	Districts: legislative change does not extinguish ADE’s obligation to disburse appropriated funds for 2010–2011 and 2011–2012	ADE: legislative amendment alters distribution rules and may render the dispute moot	Court declined to deem the issue moot but found resolution unnecessary because districts’ primary arguments failed
Whether mere inclusion of an issue in the record (or fleeting references in briefs) preserves it for appeal	Districts: presence of documentary and brief references shows issue was argued and not waived	ADE: listing or fleeting references without developed appellate argument amounts to waiver	Held that mere presence in record or fleeting references is insufficient; absent developed appellate argument the point is waived

Key Cases Cited

City of Dover v. Barton, 342 Ark. 521 (mandate rule: trial court’s jurisdiction on remand is confined to executing appellate court directions)
Johnson v. Bonds Fertilizer, Inc., 375 Ark. 224 (trial court may not vary or revisit issues decided on appeal)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Regions Bank Trust Dep’t, 356 Ark. 494 (law-of-the-case principles described)
Kelly v. Kelly, 2014 Ark. 543 (law-of-the-case bars issues already decided or that could have been appealed)
Daniel v. Spivey, 2012 Ark. 39 (listing an issue without argument in the brief is insufficient to preserve it)
Housing Authority of City of Texarkana v. E.W. Johnson Constr. Co., 264 Ark. 523 (issues not argued on appeal are treated as waived)