663 S.W.3d 799
Ark. Ct. App.2023Background
- Ron Pruitt and Diane Barclay were in a romantic relationship (2014–2017); Barclay owned an older family home in Dover, Arkansas. Pruitt spent about $96,000–$97,000 on extensive renovations during the relationship.
- Pruitt testified he expected repayment and treated the expenditures as a loan to “us;” Barclay testified she considered the work a gift motivated by Pruitt’s care and desire to provide for her.
- At the first trial the court granted Barclay’s motion to dismiss at the close of Pruitt’s case; this court reversed and remanded in Pruitt I.
- On remand the circuit court resumed where the trial left off, denied Pruitt’s request for a new trial, barred Barclay’s expert appraiser from testifying, and ultimately found the expenditures were a gift.
- The bench trial court concluded Pruitt failed to prove unjust enrichment or justify a constructive trust; Pruitt appealed and Barclay cross-appealed the exclusion of her expert (the cross-appeal was later dismissed as moot).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a new trial was required after remand | Pruitt: remand required a new trial per appellate guidance; prior dismissal was erroneous so he should be allowed to retry his case | Barclay: remand required continuation where the trial left off; same judge could consider prior testimony, so no new trial | Court: No new trial required; remand was properly handled by continuing the proceeding where it left off; affirmed |
| Whether Pruitt proved unjust enrichment | Pruitt: presented a coherent theory and evidence of nearly $97k conferred and expected repayment | Barclay: testified the renovations were a gift, she could not afford repayment, and had no expectation to reimburse | Court: Found credibility for Barclay, concluded expenditures were a gift; Pruitt failed to meet burden for unjust enrichment; affirmed |
| Availability of a constructive trust | Pruitt: sought constructive trust as remedy for alleged unjust enrichment | Barclay: no unjust enrichment occurred, so constructive trust not warranted | Court: Constructive trust requires unjust enrichment; because none was found, constructive-trust claim fails |
| Exclusion of Barclay’s expert (Mayhan) | Pruitt: opposed expert testimony (objected at trial) | Barclay: sought to admit appraiser to prove value change on remand | Court: Cross-appeal moot because direct appeal affirmed; otherwise exclusion was litigated below and not reviewable here — cross-appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Pruitt v. Barclay, 594 S.W.3d 120 (Ark. App. 2020) (remand after erroneous dismissal)
- Rymor Builders, Inc. v. Tanglewood Plumbing Co., 265 S.W.3d 151 (Ark. App. 2007) (discusses circumstances for new trial after procedural errors)
- Carton v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 798 S.W.2d 674 (Ark. 1990) (new-trial principles in jury trials where empaneling same jury on remand is impractical)
- Feagin v. Jackson, 419 S.W.3d 29 (Ark. App. 2012) (unjust-enrichment is a question of fact)
- Sims v. Moser, 284 S.W.3d 505 (Ark. 2008) (standard of review for bench-trial factual findings)
- Phillips v. Denton, 543 S.W.3d 508 (Ark. App. 2018) (unjust-enrichment burden: claimant must present a coherent theory permitting at least a reasonable approximation of the wrongful gain)
- Harness v. Nuckles, 475 S.W.3d 558 (Ark. 2015) (quoted for the claimant’s burden in unjust-enrichment claims)