379 S.W.3d 766
Ark. Ct. App.2010Background
- Appellants Johnny and Toni Pruitt own Franklin County property; appellee Dickerson Excavation, Inc. sought a materialmen’s lien for work on poultry house pads.
- Contract: February 8, 2007 bid of $80,000; April 17, 2007 agreement providing $15,000 upon two pads and the balance upon the other two pads.
- Work began March 8, 2007; two middle pads finished by end of May 2007; June 14 and August 3, 2007 each resulted in Waiver of Lien to Date and $15,000 payments.
- Rock removal issue arose; June 29, 2007 and July 15, 2007 letters framed rock work as outside the original contract or billed hourly; another contractor later handled rock removal; Dickerson Excavation used rock for fill.
- September 11, 2007: lien filed for $51,825; September 20, 2007: slander-of-title suit filed by appellants; circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee on several bases; bench trial followed with a December 1, 2008 letter opinion; judgment awarded $30,000 to appellee; remand for damages clarification; appeal ensued.
- On appeal, several posttrial issues were raised; the court ultimately affirmed in part and reversed/remanded in part, including remand for clarification of damages and vacation of attorney’s fees ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court must make additional posttrial findings | Pruitt argues Rule 52(a) requires more findings; timely posttrial motion required additional findings. | Dickerson argues Rule 52(b) allows discretion to amend findings; prior letter opinion satisfied needs. | Rule 52(b) discretion; no error |
| Admissibility of parol evidence to modify terms | Pruitt contends parol evidence improperly varies contract terms. | Dickerson contends parole evidence establishes a separate rock-removal agreement. | Parol evidence admissible to prove a subsequent agreement, not to vary the original contract |
| Waiver of lien effect | Pruitt asserts waivers included the rock-removal lien and thus waived it. | Dickerson argues waivers released only the lien tied to the original contract. | Waivers released only the original contract lien; not the rock-removal claim |
| Damages basis for rock removal claim | Pruitt challenges the $30,000 award as unsupported by invoices and testimony. | Dickerson maintains evidence supports the rock-removal damages. | Damages award requires further clarification; remanded for explicit basis |
| Slander-of-title summary judgment/privilege | Pruitt asserts malice or lack of probable cause in filing a lien over $50,000. | Dickerson asserts absolute privilege for lien filing in judicial proceedings and lack of malice; lien-waiver mootness argued. | Summary judgment sustained on privilege; slander claim moot due to waiver findings; attorney’s fees remanded for reconsideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Apollo Coating RCS, Inc. v. Brookridge Funding Corp., 81 Ark.App. 396 (Ark. App. 2003) (Rule 52(d) timing and findings interplay; discretionary posttrial findings)
- Lane v. Pfeifer, 264 Ark. 162 (Ark. 1978) (parol evidence collateral agreement rule)
- City Nat'l Bank v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 22 Ark.App. 5 (Ark. App. 1987) (parol evidence not to vary; modification by subsequent oral agreement)
- Sterling v. Landis, 9 Ark.App. 290 (Ark. App. 1983) (subsequent oral modification of a written contract)
- Hagans v. Haines, 64 Ark.App. 158 (Ark. App. 1998) (parol evidence rules; collateral facts where silent)
- Lyman Lamb Co. v. Arkansas Shell Homes, Inc., 241 Ark. 83 (Ark. 1966) (fraudulent overstatement; malice considerations in liens)
- Murphy v. City of West Memphis, 352 Ark. 315 (Ark. 2003) (privilege-based dismissals in slander contexts)
- Davis v. Brushy Island Public Water Auth., 375 Ark. 249 (Ark. 2008) (mootness and procedural posture in slander claims)