Moore v. Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
2016 Ark. 422
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Christopher Moore, a nearby retail liquor permit holder, challenged the Arkansas Alcoholic Beverage Control Board’s (Board) July 18, 2013 decision to grant a retail liquor permit to Sarah Gildehaus.
- Mrs. Gildehaus operates a sole-proprietorship liquor store; her husband, Roger Gildehaus, owns interests in Gild Holdings and Gild Corporation, which own a separate liquor permit and the building where her store is located.
- After circuit court remand, both spouses executed written relinquishments disclaiming present and future interests in each other’s permits; Mrs. Gildehaus testified she pays flat rent to the corporation, maintains separate bank accounts, and did not receive a personal guarantee from her husband for her line of credit.
- The Board unanimously concluded the spouses had divested reciprocal permit interests and that neither received direct or indirect financial benefit from the other’s permit, and it issued Mrs. Gildehaus a permit.
- The Pulaski County Circuit Court dismissed Moore’s petition for judicial review, finding Moore had standing and the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, addressing statutory construction of Ark. Code Ann. § 3-4-205 and whether spouses may hold separate retail liquor permits when they have divested reciprocal interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Moore) | Defendant's Argument (Gildehaus/Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek judicial review | Moore claimed injury from competitive harm and alleged prejudice to substantial rights | Board and Gildehaus did not dispute Moore’s status as a permit holder adversely affected | Moore has standing; his nearby permit and alleged competitive injury suffice |
| Whether spouse of a permit-holder may hold a separate permit under § 3-4-205 | Granting Mrs. Gildehaus a permit violates the statute barring permit-holders from having interests or benefiting from sales at another location | Statute prohibits a permit-holder from benefiting from another permit, but does not automatically bar spouses who have divested reciprocal interests | Court held spouses may hold separate permits if they have sufficiently divested any legal interest; Board’s conclusion supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether Board exceeded remand scope by admitting new evidence at remand hearing | Board improperly admitted evidence beyond the circuit court’s remand scope | Board permitted evidence and Moore failed to preserve this objection for appeal | Issue not preserved; appellate court refused to consider it |
| Whether lease, bank security, or other arrangements created indirect financial benefit or interest violating § 3-4-205 | Lease of building owned by husband, bank setoff for Mrs. Gildehaus, and alleged improper security created indirect benefit/interest | Evidence showed flat rent, no joint bank account at that bank, no personal guarantee by husband, and written relinquishments — no indirect benefit or secured interest by husband | Substantial evidence supported Board’s finding that these arrangements did not create prohibited direct or indirect financial benefit or interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Seiz Co. v. Ark. State Hwy. & Transp. Dep’t, 324 S.W.3d 336 (Ark. 2009) (standard and scope of appellate review for administrative agencies)
- Arkansas Beverage Retailers Ass’n, Inc. v. Moore, 256 S.W.3d 488 (Ark. 2007) (definition of "injury" and standing to seek judicial review of agency action)
- Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Assocs., Inc. v. Ruskin Heights, LLC, 453 S.W.3d 667 (Ark. 2015) (rules of statutory construction; give words their ordinary meaning)
- Friar v. Erwin, 450 S.W.3d 666 (Ark. 2014) (avoid construing statutes so words are superfluous)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ark. Motor Veh. Comm’n, 161 S.W.3d 788 (Ark. 2004) (preservation rule: appellate courts will not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal)