575 S.W.3d 137
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Robert Peck created the Peck Family Trust naming widow Hannah Finley as trustee and primary beneficiary; his daughters (including Alison Peck) were contingent beneficiaries.
- Finley sold a Calder artwork she believed funded the trust, invested the proceeds, and later faced litigation over ownership and trust administration.
- Alison Peck sued Finley (May 2014), seeking declaratory relief, an accounting, and alleging conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, deceit, unjust enrichment, and punitive damages; she amended multiple times.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing Peck’s tort-sounding counts (conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, deceit, unjust enrichment) as time-barred under the general three-year tort statute; it preserved some declaratory questions and the accounting claim to the one-year window.
- Peck appealed; the Arkansas Court of Appeals concluded Peck’s claims are predominately breaches of trust under the Arkansas Trust Code (ATC), so the ATC’s limitations scheme (including the one-year trigger in Ark. Code Ann. § 28-73-1005(a)) applies, and material factual disputes about whether Finley sent a report that adequately disclosed claims precluded summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Peck’s claims are governed by the general three-year tort statute or the ATC limitations | Peck: claims allege breach of trust; ATC (one-year/ five-year) controls | Finley: claims sound in tort; apply general three-year statute | Court: claims predominantly allege breach of trust under ATC; ATC limitations control |
| Whether the one-year ATC limitations period (§ 28-73-1005(a)) began to run | Peck: one-year period cannot run unless court first determines a compliant report was sent; she disputes adequacy | Finley: reports triggered the one-year period | Held: one-year period is triggered only by sending a report that adequately discloses a potential claim and informs beneficiary of time to sue; adequacy is a question of fact |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on statute-of-limitations grounds | Peck: factual dispute as to adequacy of reports precludes summary judgment | Finley: no compliant-report issue; time-bar applies as a matter of law | Held: summary judgment improper because material factual dispute exists about whether reports met ATC disclosure requirements |
| Whether law-of-the-case bars defendant’s statute-of-limitations defenses | Peck: earlier rulings bar Finley’s defenses | Finley: defenses remain available | Court: did not reach—circuit court made no explicit ruling below, so issue not preserved for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Hardin v. Bishop, 2013 Ark. 395 (summary-judgment standard)
- City of Rockport v. City of Malvern, 2012 Ark. 445 (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Alexander v. Twin City Bank, 322 Ark. 478 (limitations may support summary judgment)
- IC Corp. v. Hoover Treated Wood Prods., 2011 Ark. App. 589 (limitations and summary-judgment treatment)
- Tony Smith Trucking v. Woods & Woods, Ltd., 75 Ark. App. 134 (statute-of-limitations standards)
- Peterson v. Peck, 430 S.W.3d 797 (Ark. App. 2013) (prior litigation addressing ownership and trust issues)
- Peck v. Peck (Peck I), 502 S.W.3d 553 (Ark. App. 2016) (earlier reversal remanding for factual showing of bad faith)
- Ducharme v. Ducharme, 305 Mich.App. 1 (explaining when tort claims are actually trust-code breaches)