Heinrich v. Anders
2017 Ark. App. 153
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Allison Anders sued Larry and Seth Heinrich and David Myhand alleging David breached a 2009 contract to sell real property at 6712 Sheridan Road and that Larry fraudulently conveyed the property to their son Seth. David is not a party to this appeal.
- Larry and Allison had been married when the contract was executed; they divorced in January 2012. Allison contends Larry later used a power of attorney and an assignment to effectuate transfers.
- At a September 23, 2014 hearing, Larry and Seth moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing res judicata because property disposition was addressed in the divorce proceeding; the circuit court reviewed the divorce file and ordered briefing on jurisdiction.
- The circuit court entered a January 12, 2015 letter opinion denying the motion to dismiss (finding the divorce decree did not address specific real property) and later, after a second hearing, entered findings of fact and conclusions of law on June 2, 2016 addressing breach, alleged fraudulent conveyance, power-of-attorney use, and statute-of-frauds issues.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals found the record and addendum submitted by appellants omitted essential documents (the 2012 divorce decree, the jurisdictional briefs, the circuit court’s January 12, 2015 letter opinion, the power of attorney, and the assignment), preventing review of the res judicata and transfer issues.
- The Court remanded, ordered a certified supplemental record and substituted addendum/briefing, and warned that failure to comply could result in affirmance for noncompliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Allison’s breach claim | Allison: divorce decree did not adjudicate the specific property or claim | Larry/Seth: divorce adjudicated disposition of the property; claim precluded | Court declined to rule because essential divorce documents and briefs were missing from the record; remanded to supplement record |
| Whether Larry’s power of attorney effected a valid transfer | Allison: power of attorney was not used to convey property to Seth; transfer was fraudulent | Larry/Seth: power of attorney and assignment supported the transfer | Court declined to rule because power of attorney and assignment were omitted from the addendum; remanded to include them |
| Whether an unrecorded, unsigned assignment satisfied the statute of frauds | Allison: assignment invalid and unenforceable | Larry/Seth: assignment effectuated transfer despite lack of recording/signature | Court declined to rule for lack of the assignment document in the addendum; remanded |
| Procedural: adequacy of appellate record | Allison: record should allow merits review | Larry/Seth: obligations to include necessary documents in addendum | Court held appellants failed to include required documents per Ark. R. App. P. and Ark. Sup. Ct. R.; ordered supplementation and rebriefing; warned of possible affirmance for noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- Pentz v. Romine, 57 S.W.3d 235 (Ark. App. 2001) (elements and scope of claim-preclusion under res judicata)
- McNeil v. Lillard, 86 S.W.3d 389 (Ark. App. 2002) (appellate review requires inclusion of prior-judgment documents in the record; omission may warrant rebriefing or dismissal)