448 S.W.3d 696
Ark.2014Background
- Hurt-Hoover purchased H2O Lifts and Ramps, LLC for $955,000, executing promissory notes to the sellers.
- Appellees sued Hurt-Hoover in Cleburne County for failure to pay installments; venue challenged under §16-60-111(a).
- Hurt-Hoover argued venue lay in Craighead County under §16-60-111(a) as the defendant’s residence and principal place of business.
- Appellees argued venue lay in Cleburne County under §16-55-213(a)(3)(A), the county where appellees resided, and that the two statutes are not irreconcilable.
- Circuit court held venue lies in Cleburne County, concluding §16-55-213 impliedly repealed §16-60-111, and denied dismissal.
- Motion for summary judgment was denied; indemnity/set-off issues remained for trial; Hurt-Hoover sought withdrawal of counsel and a continuance to obtain substitute counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did §16-55-213 repeal §16-60-111 by implication for venue? | Hurt-Hoover: no implied repeal; statutes harmonize. | Fulmer et al.: §16-55-213 repeals §16-60-111, selecting Cleburne as venue. | §16-55-213 did not repeal §16-60-111 by implication. |
| Was Jones's testimony barred by the parol-evidence rule, and was a continuance necessary to obtain substitute counsel? | Hurt-Hoover: Jones could testify to contract intent; continuance needed. | Fulmer: parol evidence barred; no continuance necessary if testimony excluded. | Parol evidence properly excluded; continuance unnecessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Centerpoint Energy Resources Corp., 372 Ark. 330 (2008) (venue fixed where events occurred; conflict with later statute resolved harmoniously)
- Dotson v. City of Lowell, 375 Ark. 89 (2008) (irreconcilable conflict when venue fixed by time differs; implied replacement of prior statute)
- Neeve v. City of Caddo Valley, 351 Ark. 235 (2002) (avoid repeal by implication when harmonization possible)
- Kerr v. Walker, 229 Ark. 1054 (1959) (parol-evidence limits on extrinsic testimony; ambiguity governs admissibility)
- Smith v. Sullivan, 190 Ark. 859 (1935) (cumulative venue statutes can coexist)