National Bank of Arkansas v. River Crossing Partners, LLC
385 S.W.3d 754
Ark.2011Background
- NBA and RCP dispute over foreclosure, notes, and fraudulent transfers following a 2005 loan and subsequent defaults; security included multiple mortgages and bonds; August 2008 suit sought foreclosure, monetary judgment, and fraudulent-transfer relief; jury trial on damages and certain equities, with verdicts on multiple notes and transfers; circuit court directed verdicts on some claims and granted foreclosure; on appeal, NBA argues jury should not have decided equitable issues and cross-appeal argues abuse-of-process verdict should be upheld; this court reverses on direct appeal and affirms on cross-appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether foreclosure and fraudulent-transfer claims were properly jury-tried | NBA argues these are equitable claims not triable to a jury | RCP contends underlying contract claim made jury-triable issues | Error: equitable claims should be tried by judge; reversed on direct appeal |
| Whether trial court erred in motions on the jury verdict and related rulings | NBA contends denial of motions for directed verdict/JNOV/new trial/mistrial | RCP defends trial rulings as proper | Reversed on direct appeal for the challenged jury-trial issues; other motions not reached on remand |
| Whether substantial evidence supports the jury verdict on security and fraudulent transfer | NBA challenges that Notes 3–5 were not secured by bonds and transfers were fraudulent | RCP supports jury’s findings | Not reached; remand to address jury-trial issues first |
| Cross-appeal: abuse of process verdict | Robert contends substantial evidence supported abuse-of-process claim | NBA argues lack of ulterior purpose and improper use | Directed verdict for NBA on abuse-of-process affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruthis, 360 Ark. 528 (2005) (historical nature of claims; when to submit to judge vs jury; clean-up doctrine remains limited after Amendment 80)
- Colclasure v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 290 Ark. 585 (1986) (foreclosure is equitable; equitable lien normally in chancery)
- Ludwig v. Bella Casa, LLC, 2010 Ark. 435 (2010) (nuisance on de novo appeal; court may reserve issues of remedy for equity)
- Clark v. Bank of Bentonville, 308 Ark. 241 (1992) (fraudulent transfer as equitable; lien imposition as equity)
- Amtrust Inc. v. Larson, 388 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 2004) (mortgage foreclosure not a right to jury trial)
- Riggin v. Dierdorff, 302 Ark. 517 (1990) (foreclosure proceeding is equitable)
- Colclasure v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 290 Ark. 585 (1986) (foreclosure is equitable; historical view of remedies)
- South Ark. Petroleum Co. v. Schiesser, 343 Ark. 492 (2001) (abuse of process elements; proper use of process)
- Routh Wrecker Serv., Inc. v. Washington, 385 Ark. 232 (1998) (abuse of process standard; purpose of process)
- Sundeen v. Kroger, 355 Ark. 138 (2003) (tort of abuse of process; improper use after issuance)
- Harmon v. Careo Carnage Corp., 320 Ark. 322 (1995) (narrow scope of abuse-of-process tort)
- Union Nat’l Bank of Little Rock v. Kutait, 312 Ark. 14 (1993) (principles on equitable vs legal claims)