Hurt-Hoover Investments, LLC v. Fulmer, 433 S.W.3d 917

Hurt-Hoover Investments, LLC sues four individuals in Cleburne County for breach of a Purchase and Sale Agreement regarding H2O Lifts and Ramps, LLC; Hurt-Hoover paid $400,000 upfront but defaulted on remaining promissory note installments.
Venue: Hurt-Hoover moved to dismiss for improper venue under Ark. Code Ann. § 16‑60‑111(a)(1); the circuit court held 16‑55‑213(a) repealed 16‑60‑111(a)(1) by implication and thus proper venue in Cleburne County.
Summary judgment denied to Hurt-Hoover; genuine issues existed regarding Paragraph 6.01 (indemnification) of the contract.
Hurt-Hoover sought to have the drafting attorney testify about the indemnification provision; the court denied withdrawal of counsel, continuance, and the attorney’s testimony.
Trial proceeded in Cleburne County; jury found for appellees; appeal affirmed on both venue and parol evidence issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Venue proper in Cleburne County?	Hurt-Hoover: §16‑60‑111(a)(1) governs venue; §16‑55‑213(a) did not repeal by implication.	Fulmer et al.: §16‑55‑213(a) repeals older venue provisions; fixes venue by events, residence, or principal office.	Venue properly in Cleburne County.
admissibility of attorney's testimony on contract meaning (parol evidence)	Hurt-Hoover contends parol evidence should be allowed to interpret Paragraph 6.01.	Appellees: parol evidence barred; testimony would only reflect one party’s subjective interpretation.	Court did not abuse discretion; attorney's testimony barred; continuance moot.

Dotson v. City of Lowell, 375 Ark. 89 (2008) (irreconcilable conflict under venue statutes; repeal by implication favored)
McMickle v. Griffin, 369 Ark. 318 (2007) (read conflicting venue provisions; repeal by implication favored)
Uilkie v. State, 309 Ark. 48 (1992) (repeal by implication when two statutes irreconcilably conflict)
Newbern & Watkins (cited in footnotes), - (-) (textbook/secondary authority cited regarding venue reform act)