626 S.W.3d 130
Ark. Ct. App.2021Background
- Summers Drilling was a subcontractor for Goodwin & Goodwin on a construction project; Goodwin sued Summers for breach of the subcontract.
- The Sebastian County Circuit Court found Summers breached the contract and awarded Goodwin damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees.
- This Court in Summers Drilling I affirmed liability but remanded for a recalculation of damages.
- On remand the trial court reviewed trial evidence (including David Garcia’s equipment/labor summary) and recalculated Goodwin’s completion costs at $430,916.26; it also reinstated previous attorneys’ fees and awarded additional post-remand fees.
- Summers appealed the remand-calculated damages and the attorneys’‑fee award, arguing among other things that a concurring opinion from Summers Drilling I controlled the remand and that Goodwin was not the prevailing party.
- The trial court’s factual findings were reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard; statutory-interpretation issues were reviewed de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper calculation of damages for Goodwin’s completion costs | Trial court overstated costs by: treating drilling rate as exclusive of equipment rental; including work Goodwin did not perform; including unrelated equipment rentals | Trial court properly weighed evidence (David Garcia’s cost summary) and supported $430,916.26 total | Trial court’s damage calculation was supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether a concurring opinion from Summers Drilling I bound the trial court on remand | Summers: concurring opinion’s analysis controlled remand and this court on appeal | Goodwin: concurring opinions are not binding precedent; only majority controls | Court: concurring opinions are not binding; trial court was not bound by the concurrence |
| Award of attorneys’ fees (who is prevailing party) | Summers: Goodwin was not the prevailing party and thus not entitled to attorneys’ fees | Goodwin: having prevailed on the breach claim and on remand, it is the prevailing party entitled to fees | Court: Goodwin was the prevailing party; fee award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers Drilling & Blasting, Inc. v. Goodwin & Goodwin, Inc., 598 S.W.3d 853 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020) (affirmed liability but remanded for recalculation of damages)
- Bohannon v. Robinson, 447 S.W.3d 585 (Ark. 2014) (bench-trial findings reviewed for clear error)
- Claver v. Wilbur, 280 S.W.3d 570 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008) (statutory-interpretation issues reviewed de novo)