2014 Ark. App. 83
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Gemini Capital sued McFarland for unpaid credit-card debt assigned from Chase, alleging $8,462.75 and attaching an affidavit; initial complaint did not include the cardmember agreement.
- McFarland (pro se, then by counsel) asserted lack of standing and that the assignment/documents were invalid; he moved for judgment on the pleadings under Ark. R. Civ. P. 10(d) for failure to attach the underlying agreement.
- Gemini filed an amended complaint attaching the Chase cardmember agreement and argued the amendment cured any Rule 10(d) defect under Ark. R. Civ. P. 15(a)/(c).
- The trial court granted McFarland’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, relying on LVNV Funding, LLC v. Nardi and Rule 10(d), and dismissed with prejudice, finding no good-cause shown for omission.
- On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding the amended complaint related back and cured the Rule 10(d) defect; the case was remanded for further proceedings and the court did not resolve the other appellate points.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an amended complaint attaching the underlying written instrument cures an original complaint’s noncompliance with Rule 10(d) | Gemini: Amendment relates back under Ark. R. Civ. P. 15(c) and thus cures the defect; Rule 15(a) allows amendment and no good-cause showing was required once amended | McFarland: Rule 10(d) requires showing of good cause when instrument is omitted; permitting amendment without good-cause would render Rule 10(d) meaningless | Held: Reversed. Amendment related back and cured the Rule 10(d) defect; dismissal for noncompliance was error and became moot |
| Whether dismissal should have been with prejudice | Gemini: Dismissal was improper after amendment; at minimum dismissal without prejudice should have been ordered | McFarland: Trial court’s dismissal with prejudice was appropriate for noncompliance | Held: Not decided on merits — remanded for further proceedings (court did not address remaining points) |
| Whether a judge not assigned to the case could render judgment | Gemini: Trial court erred by allowing an unassigned judge to enter judgment | McFarland: (implicit) judgment as entered was valid | Held: Not decided — court remanded and did not address this argument |
Key Cases Cited
- LVNV Funding, LLC v. Nardi, 2012 Ark. 460 (Ark. 2012) (Rule 10(d) requires attachment of the instrument to the complaint; compliance is mandatory)
- Ray & Sons Masonry Contractors, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 353 Ark. 201 (Ark. 2003) (failure to attach required contract to complaint violated Rule 10(d))
- Cavalry SPV, LLC v. Anderson, 99 Ark. App. 309 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007) (Rule 15(a) permits liberal amendments; striking amended pleadings requires showing of prejudice or undue delay)