Skalla v. Canepari
430 S.W.3d 72
Ark.2013Background
- Skalla and her uncles each own one-third interests in two adjacent tracts (North Farm 640 acres; South Farm 320 acres) as tenants in common.
- The farms were leased to Hood and Bramucci families; Charles served as managing partner of an unwritten partnership.
- Skalla sought improvements and discussed a long-term plan; a written cost estimate of $250,000 was circulated but not approved.
- Albert sold his one-third to Canepari; later Charles also sold his one-third to Canepari; Skalla declined a first-refusal offer.
- Canepari pursued partition and leased his interests separately; Skalla later offered to sell her interest and pursued a partition action.
- Skalla alleged Canepari breached fiduciary duties, tortiously interfered with contracts/expectancies, and violated the ADTPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of fiduciary duty by cotenant | Skalla argues Canepari owed a fiduciary duty after acquiring cotenant interests. | Canepari contends no duty to participate in long-term plans or leases. | No fiduciary-duty breach; Clement not controlling; cotenant may act independently. |
| Tortious interference with business expectancy | Skalla asserts Canepari interfered with leases and plans. | Canepari argues actions were lawful and not improper interference. | No actionable interference; leases ongoing; no concrete, actionable expectancy. |
| ADTPA claim viability | Skalla claims Canepari engaged in deceptive, consumer-oriented practices. | ADTPA applies to consumer-oriented acts; farming conduct is not consumer-oriented. | ADTPA claim fails; no consumer-oriented deceptive act shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clement v. Cates, 49 Ark. 242 (1887) (adverse title principles; not controlling where no adverse title exists here)
- Graham v. Inlow, 302 Ark. 414, 790 S.W.2d 428 (1990) (tenants in common may make improvements; no cotenant veto requirement)
- O'Connor v. Patton, 171 Ark. 626, 286 S.W. 822 (1926) (tenants in common have dominion over property absent interference)
- Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Am. Abstract & Title Co., 363 Ark. 530, 215 S.W.3d 596 (2005) (improper interference required for business expectancy claims)
- Harrisburg Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. Neal, 2011 Ark. 233, 381 S.W.3d 811 (2011) (summary judgment standard: no genuine issues of material fact)