Pitchford v. City of Earle
576 S.W.3d 103
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Pro se plaintiff Frederick Pitchford sued the City of Earle and various officials alleging multiple causes: illegal exactions, FOIA violations, improper dual office holding, wrongful terminations, improper use of city vehicle, improper participation in budget meeting, failures by city attorney, and improperly paid overtime.
- Pitchford filed an original complaint and three amended complaints in 2016; bench trial occurred in December 2017.
- Pitchford called nine witnesses but did not testify or admit documentary exhibits at trial; many allegations lacked supporting proof at trial.
- After trial, Pitchford sought (1) contempt for the absent mayor, (2) a perjury hearing for two witnesses, (3) permission to call city attorney Loftin (denied), and (4) to submit additional payroll records for Sgt. Elberson (denied as untimely).
- The circuit court entered judgment for the city and denied the posttrial motion; Pitchford appealed thirteen points. The appellate court affirmed in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Illegal payment to councilman Luckett for serving as city inspector (dual office) | Luckett held two offices and was paid for inspector work; funds should be repaid | Any inspector work by Luckett was uncompensated or no proof of payment; no evidence of misappropriation | Court: No proof of amount paid; no clear error in denying recovery |
| Wrongful termination of mechanic and police chief | Terminations violated required procedures and harmed taxpayers | Pitchford lacks standing and offered no evidence of taxpayer damages | Court: Pitchford has no individualized adverse impact; no standing; affirm |
| Misuse of city vehicle for noncity business (mayor) | Mayor used vehicle to Southland Park for private business; illegal exaction | No evidence of monetary damage; mayor absent and not subpoenaed properly | Court: No evidence of damage; claim rejected |
| Interim mayor participation in 2016 budget meeting | Interim mayor should have been enjoined from participating | The meeting occurred in Dec 2015; request is moot | Court: Issue moot; appellate review declined |
| FOIA violation for destruction of adding-machine tape | Clerk destroyed a public record required to be kept | Tape was disposable; numbers preserved elsewhere; not required to be retained | Court: No evidence tape was required public record; no FOIA violation |
| City attorney misconduct / failure to advise | Loftin gave improper advice; contract should be terminated | No evidentiary showing or viable malpractice claim; Loftin represented city at trial | Court: No evidence of dereliction; claim fails |
| Failure to send correct Entergy inspection ticket | Failure deprived Pitchford of electricity at 1609 Carol Cloar; fraud/dishonesty | Mistaken address (1601 v.1609); honest confusion | Court: Trial evidence supports mistake; not fraud or dishonesty |
| Improper overtime paid to Sgt. Elberson | Elberson exceeded 20-hour limit and received ~$3,497.50 overtime; funds should be returned | No payroll records or hours were admitted at trial; clerk followed comp-time protocol | Court: Pitchford produced no trial evidence of overtime; posttrial submission was untimely; claim fails |
| Contempt and perjury posttrial requests | Mayor should be held in contempt for absence; Luckett/Clerk committed perjury | Mayor not properly subpoenaed; allegations of perjury unsupported and witnesses were cross-examined | Court: Contempt denied for lack of valid subpoena; perjury hearing denied for lack of factual support |
| Request to call city attorney as witness | Loftin was a named defendant and should testify | Loftin was city’s counsel at trial and plaintiff asserted no cognizable cause of action against him | Court: Denial upheld as plaintiff failed to state a viable claim; moot given other rulings |
Key Cases Cited
- Farm Credit Midsouth, PCA v. Reece Contracting, Inc., 359 Ark. 267 (bench-trial standard review) (bench findings reversed only if clearly erroneous)
- Summitt Mall Co., LLC v. Lemond, 355 Ark. 190 (standing requires individualized adverse impact)
- Cotten v. Fooks, 346 Ark. 130 (mootness and refusal to render advisory opinions)
- Stromwall v. Van Hoose, 371 Ark. 267 (mootness principles in appellate review)
- Helena Country Club v. Brocato, 2018 Ark. 16 (disfavors attorney testimony when attorney is advocate)