Tadlock v. Moncus
2013 Ark. App. 363
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Tadlock received $60,000 from Stewart in January 2000 to purchase property; she used it to acquire the farm.
- After Stewart’s death, the administrator discovered a handwritten document drafted by Tadlock and a receipt book showing $200 monthly payments 2001–2007.
- The administrator filed suit in 2010 seeking payment of the $60,000 balance, alleging a loan.
- Tadlock claimed the $60,000 was a gift and payments were for Stewart’s insurance; she argued the document was not a promissory note and may have been a vacation-related letter.
- The circuit court found an oral loan agreement supported by the document and receipts, held the statute of frauds did not apply, and entered judgment for Moncus in the amount of $48,200 (later reduced to $43,200 after evidence).
- The appellate issues concern preservation of findings, existence of an oral contract, application of the statute of frauds, and admissibility of the receipt book.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of findings of fact on appeal | Tadlock contends for explicit findings. | Moncus argues issue not preserved due to deemed denial rule. | Not preserved; review denied. |
| Existence of an oral agreement between Stewart and Tadlock | Document was not a loan contract; payments were gifts. | Document and conduct show a loan; credibility favors Moncus. | Oral loan agreement found, supported by document and payments. |
| Applicability of the statute of frauds | Oral agreement for real-property-related loan should be within statute. | Oral repayment of money not within statute if not mortgage. | Statute of frauds not apply; full and partial performance remove the contract. |
| Admission of the receipt book over hearsay objections | Receipt book is hearsay and authentic handwriting too uncertain. | Business-record foundation and handwriting authenticity challenged. | No reversible error; admission not prejudicial; balance supported by testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- RAD-Razorback Ltd. P’ship v. B.G. Coney Co., 289 Ark. 550, 713 S.W.2d 462 (Ark. 1986) (credibility of parties’ conduct may resolve ambiguities in contract terms)
- Wynn v. Sklar & Phillips Oil Co., 254 Ark. 332, 493 S.W.2d 439 (Ark. 1973) (courts accord deference to credibility determinations)
- Talley v. Blackmon, 271 Ark. 494, 609 S.W.2d 113 (Ark. 1980) (full performance and part performance can take contract out of statute of frauds)
- Cobb v. Leyendecker, 89 Ark.App. 167, 200 S.W.3d 924 (Ark. App. 2005) (oral contract may be taken out of the statute of frauds with clear and convincing evidence)
- Anderson v. Pearce, 36 Ark. 293 (Ark. 1880) (acknowledgment of debt creates valid obligation to repay)