Orintas v. Point Lookout Property Owners Ass'n Board of Directors
476 S.W.3d 174
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Richard and Melanie Orintas (pro se) sued Point Lookout Property Owners Association Board of Directors (the Board) and Diane Kesling Silberstein alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, libel, slander, slander of title, and boat damages; Silberstein was later dismissed with prejudice.
- The Orintas filed multiple pleadings: original (Apr 2012), amended (Nov 2012), second amended (Feb 2013), and a third amended complaint filed three days before a scheduled summary-judgment hearing (Aug 26, 2014), which only amended libel and slander claims.
- Both parties moved for summary judgment; the hearing occurred Aug 29, 2014. The trial court granted the Board’s motion for summary judgment, denied the Orintas’s motion, and struck the third amended complaint.
- On appeal the Orintas challenged (1) the grant of summary judgment to the Board and (2) the trial court’s striking of their third amended complaint.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it refused to consider inadequately developed arguments on summary judgment and held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in striking the late-filed amendment because it prejudiced the Board and would have disrupted the pending summary-judgment disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grant of summary judgment to Board was erroneous | Orintas: evidence in pleadings, exhibits, and affidavit defeats summary judgment | Board: summary-judgment record supports dismissal of Orintas’s claims | Affirmed — Orintas failed to develop or cite authority for arguments; appellate court declines to consider undeveloped arguments |
| Whether striking third amended complaint was an abuse of discretion | Orintas: late amendment caused no prejudice; no new theory; no written motion to strike | Board: late amendment (3 days before hearing while its MSJ pending) prejudiced ability to respond; requested strike orally | Affirmed — trial court acted within broad discretion; late filing prejudicial and could undermine summary-judgment proceeding |
| Whether new arguments raised in reply brief may be considered | Orintas: raised further arguments/evidence in reply | Board: opposed consideration (no chance to respond) | Not considered — arguments presented first in reply are untimely and will not be reviewed |
Key Cases Cited
- Koch v. Adams, 361 S.W.3d 817 (Ark. 2010) (appellate court will not consider undeveloped or unsupported arguments)
- Smith v. Heather Manor Care Center, Inc., 424 S.W.3d 368 (Ark. App. 2012) (appellant not entitled to court-developed arguments)
- Walters v. Dobbins, 370 S.W.3d 209 (Ark. 2010) (failure to develop an appellate point justifies affirmance)
- Rymor Builders, Inc. v. Tanglewood Plumbing Co., 265 S.W.3d 151 (Ark. App. 2007) (arguments raised for the first time in reply brief are forfeited)
- Neal v. Sparks Regional Medical Center, 422 S.W.3d 116 (Ark. 2012) (trial court’s broad discretion on allowing or denying amendments to pleadings)
- Stoltz v. Friday, 926 S.W.2d 438 (Ark. 1996) (striking late amendment while MSJ pending was not an abuse of discretion)