2020 Ark. App. 144
Ark. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff-appellant Keith Mack (Mack’s Rice Hull Service) and defendant-appellee David Ivy (Ivy Farms) disputed unpaid hauling charges for alleged trips between Sept. 19 and Nov. 16, 2016.
- Ivy claimed ~10 trips paid per mile, presented an itemized invoice and bills of lading, and sought recovery; Mack refused to pay and Ivy moved for summary judgment.
- Mack filed an opposing affidavit denying he owed money, disputing that Ivy hauled loads in the asserted period, and alleging the bills of lading were falsified.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Ivy for $10,150; Mack appealed, arguing genuine issues of material fact, improper credibility weighing, and improper consideration of hearsay documents.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding genuine factual disputes existed and that the trial court improperly resolved credibility at the summary-judgment stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are there genuine issues of material fact about the alleged account? | Ivy: invoices and bills of lading establish the debt. | Mack: denies the loads were hauled for him in the period and says documents were fabricated. | Yes; genuine factual disputes exist; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| May the trial court resolve witness credibility on summary judgment? | Ivy: his evidence is sufficient to prevail. | Mack: credibility is disputed; a swearing match requires a trial. | No; weighing credibility at summary judgment is improper. |
| Were documents attached to Ivy’s affidavit admissible/authenticated or hearsay? | Ivy: attached documents support his account. | Mack: documents are hearsay and not properly authenticated. | Not decided on appeal; court reversed on other grounds and remanded for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgan v. Turner, 368 S.W.3d 888 (2010) (summary-judgment burden and standard)
- Clark v. Progressive Ins. Co., 984 S.W.2d 54 (1998) (credibility disputes defeat summary judgment)
- Guthrie v. Kemp, 793 S.W.2d 782 (1990) (nonmoving party must show specific facts creating genuine issue)
- Joey Brown Interest, Inc. v. Merchs. Nat’l Bank, 683 S.W.2d 601 (1985) (responses to summary-judgment motion must include specific facts, not conclusions)
- Chick v. Rebsamen Ins., 649 S.W.2d 196 (1983) (open-account case illustrating limits of summary disposition)