709 S.W.3d 31
Ark.2025Background
- Kenneth W. Tilley sued Malvern National Bank (MNB) and Stephen Moore over a failed real estate development loan, claiming breach of contract, promissory estoppel, ADTPA violations, tortious interference, negligence, and fraud.
- The litigation began after Tilley sought $350,000 in financing from MNB in 2009-2010; MNB provided checks totaling $50,000, later a $221,000 loan, but did not provide the full amount Tilley claims was promised.
- The circuit court initially struck Tilley’s jury demand, but on the first appeal (Tilley I), the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed, affirming Tilley's right to a jury trial.
- After a legislative change (Act 13 of 2018) and further proceedings, the trial court again denied a jury trial, leading to a second appeal (Tilley II) in which the Supreme Court again reversed, instructing the lower court to conduct a jury trial.
- On remand, the circuit court granted summary judgment for MNB on grounds not argued by MNB; Tilley appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the circuit court violate the appellate mandate by considering summary judgment on remand? | Mandate required a jury trial, forbidding summary judgment. | Mandate did not limit the court from hearing summary judgment. | No violation; summary judgment was still permissible. |
| Was it error for the circuit court to grant summary judgment on a ground not raised by MNB? | Yes, Tilley had no chance to respond. | Conceded error on appeal. | Error; circuit court’s rationale was improper. |
| Is MNB entitled to summary judgment on Tilley’s claims on the merits? | Disputed factual issues remain, requiring a jury. | All claims fail as a matter of law. | Mixed: summary judgment on ADTPA, tortious interference, and negligence claims, but jury trial required for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud. |
| Does the statute of frauds bar Tilley's contract-related claims? | No, partial performance and reliance defeat the defense. | Yes; agreement was unwritten/unenforceable. | Not barred for breach, promissory estoppel, or fraud; factual issues remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tilley v. Malvern Nat’l Bank, 2017 Ark. 343 (pre-dispute jury waiver clause unenforceable)
- Tilley v. Malvern Nat’l Bank, 2019 Ark. 376 (remand for jury trial on waiver issue)
- Harvest Rice, Inc. v. Fritz & Mertice Lehman Elevator & Dryer, Inc., 365 Ark. 573 (existence of contract is jury question)
- Ballard Grp., Inc. v. BP Lubricants USA, Inc., 2014 Ark. 276 (elements of tortious interference)
- Marlar v. Daniel, 368 Ark. 505 (duty requirement in negligence)
- South County, Inc. v. First Western Loan Co., 315 Ark. 722 (difference between promise and mere puffing in financing context)