Howard v. Adams
2016 Ark. App. 222
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Gary Howard (individually and as administrator/sole beneficiary of Odis Howard’s estate) obtained a 46-acre tract for the estate after litigation in which Lauren Adams represented him.
- Adams claimed a contingency attorney’s fee (one-third of the 46 acres’ value), filed an attorney-fee lien on the tract, and sought foreclosure when fee disputes arose.
- Gary sued Adams (breach, fraud, negligence); jury verdict favored Adams and the lien was upheld; an award for Adams’s personal counsel (Tamra Cochran) was reduced on appeal to $30,030.
- The circuit court previously ruled Adams’s lien was valid and that her fee would be one-third of whatever the property sold for at a future sale; this was affirmed on prior appeals.
- Adams petitioned to foreclose the lien and have the 46 acres sold at judicial sale to pay her one-third lien and Cochran’s fees; Gary sought partition instead and resisted foreclosure.
- The trial court denied partition, ordered a judicial sale, gave Adams first priority to one-third of sale proceeds for her lien, and gave Cochran a secondary claim for a reduced fee; Gary appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gary) | Defendant's Argument (Adams) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of real-estate agent testimony | Fineberg’s testimony would show private sale would fetch more and justify denying judicial sale | Testimony was irrelevant; court already aware public sales yield less and Gary testified about sale attempts | No reversible error; proffered testimony would not have prejudiced Gary |
| Treatment of Cochran fees as estate vs. personal obligation | Cochran’s fee should be Gary’s personal obligation, not charged to estate | No express order making Gary personally liable; fee tied to estate proceedings | Affirmed; no basis to treat fee as personal liability in record |
| Ordering judicial sale vs. private sale | Private sale would bring higher price; judicial sale premature | Judicial sale appropriate after years of unsuccessful private-sale attempts and lien needs satisfaction | Affirmed; circumstances justified judicial sale |
| Partition of property vs. foreclosure | Property should be partitioned (one-third to Adams, two-thirds to estate) | Adams is a lienholder, not a cotenant; partition requires cotenancy | Affirmed; lienholder status does not equate to cotenancy; partition denied |
| Priority of claims on sale proceeds | Estate administration expenses have priority over claims; lien should not be paid first | Attorney’s lien is an interest in judgment and attaches to proceeds, taking priority over other creditors | Affirmed; Adams’ attorney-fee lien has priority and law-of-the-case bars relitigation |
| Findings of fact & conclusions of law (Rule 52) | Requested more specific findings; trial court failed to comply | Trial court issued brief, definite, pertinent findings sufficient for appeal | Affirmed; Rule 52 satisfied—no remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. Adams, 332 S.W.3d 24 (Ark. App. 2009) (prior appeal in the litigation establishing background and issues)
- Howard v. Adams, 424 S.W.3d 337 (Ark. App. 2012) (affirmed jury verdict and remanded for recalculation of Cochran fee)
- Adams v. Howard, 436 S.W.3d 473 (Ark. App. 2014) (held fee to be calculated as one-third of future sale proceeds)
- Froelich v. Graham, 80 S.W.3d 360 (Ark. 2002) (attorney’s lien is an interest in judgment and attaches to proceeds)
- Jones v. Coker, 204 S.W.3d 554 (Ark. App. 2005) (appellate review requires showing prejudice from evidentiary rulings)
- Centerpoint Energy Gas Transmission Co. v. Green, 413 S.W.3d 867 (Ark. App. 2012) (Rule 52(a) requires brief, definite, pertinent findings sufficient for appellate review)