573 S.W.3d 563
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Terry Presley applied for a conditional-use permit in Aug. 2016 to operate a wedding/event center on agriculturally/residentially zoned property in Washington County.
- County planning staff and the Planning Board approved the application with conditions; some neighbors opposed and appealed to the Quorum Court.
- At the Quorum Court hearing, planning staff recommended approval, Presley answered questions, neighbors objected, and the court voted 11–1 to deny the permit.
- Presley sued in Washington County Circuit Court under Ark. Code § 14-17-211 and moved for summary judgment, submitting affidavits from planner Nathan Crouch and former planning director Juliet Richey that the statutory criteria were met.
- The County argued genuine issues of material fact existed based on the public opposition and the Quorum Court’s stated reasons; it did not submit affidavits rebutting Presley’s evidence.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment to Presley and ordered issuance of the permit; the County appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Presley’s Argument | County’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Presley met the statutory conditional-use criteria so that summary judgment was appropriate | Crouch and Richey affidavits show all criteria satisfied; no genuine factual dispute | Public comments and Quorum Court reasons create factual disputes about criteria compliance; staff findings not controlling | Held for Presley: affidavits were uncontroverted and sufficient; County failed to meet proof with proof |
| Whether unsworn public comments/Quorum Court statements can defeat summary judgment | Such comments do not meet Rule 56 affidavit/evidence requirements and cannot controvert sworn proof | Those records of proceedings show disputed facts without need for counteraffidavits | Held for Presley: unsworn statements are insufficient under Rule 56 to create a genuine issue |
| Whether internal inconsistency between staff affidavits (lack of identical statements) undermines Presley’s proof | Minor differences do not render proof contradictory or create material issues | Argued Crouch’s compatibility opinion absent from Richey’s affidavit creates inconsistency | Held for Presley: absence of identical language is not contradiction; proof stands |
| Whether the moving party’s submissions were themselves insufficient so County had no duty to rebut | Presley argued his affidavits established prima facie entitlement | County relied on prior pleadings/record and public objections to show the motion itself raised material issues | Held for Presley: Presley’s affidavits were sufficient under Rule 56; County needed to respond with admissible evidence but did not |
Key Cases Cited
- Benton Cty. v. Overland Dev. Co., 371 Ark. 559, 268 S.W.3d 885 (court summarizes Arkansas summary-judgment standard)
- Heinemann v. Hallum, 365 Ark. 600, 232 S.W.3d 420 (summary-judgment standard explanation)
- Inge v. Walker, 70 Ark. App. 114, 15 S.W.3d 348 (moving party’s submissions may present material fact conflicts requiring denial)
- Buie v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, 79 Ark. App. 344, 87 S.W.3d 832 (inconsistent excerpts can create genuine factual disputes)
- Am. Gamebird Research Educ. & Dev. Found., Inc. v. Burton, 2017 Ark. App. 297, 521 S.W.3d 176 (circuit court may not consider unsworn letters or statements as competent summary-judgment evidence)