Windsong Enters., Inc. v. Red Apple Enters. Ltd. P'ship, 542 S.W.3d 177

Windsong bought the Southwinds tract at a 1997 foreclosure sale; the tract included portions of Red Apple's Eden Isle golf course.
Dispute arose after Windsong alleged Upton/Red Apple tried to block Windsong's condominium development by amending the Eden Isle bill of assurance to restrict unplatted acreage to single-family homes.
Windsong sued Red Apple for fraud, intentional interference with business expectancy, breach of contract, negligence, and sought declaratory relief based on alleged misrepresentations of acreage in public records used to amend the bill of assurance.
Red Apple moved for partial summary judgment arguing the tort claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations, and alternatively by res judicata and collateral estoppel because related claims were or could have been raised in prior litigation (Windsong I).
The circuit court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Red Apple as to the three tort claims in a written order that did not specify the basis for the ruling.
On appeal Windsong challenged only tolling via fraudulent concealment and due diligence; the court affirmed because the unchallenged res judicata ground supported the ruling and Windsong did not brief that ground in its opening brief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Tolling of statute of limitations by fraudulent concealment	Fraudulent public records concealed Red Apple's true acreage, tolling limitations; Windsong exercised due diligence	Red Apple: records were public for years and gave constructive notice; no tolling	Not reached on merits — plaintiff only briefed this issue; court treated order as encompassing other grounds and affirmed on unchallenged ground
Res judicata / collateral estoppel	Windsong contends current claims based on later-discovered falsified records are distinct and not precluded	Red Apple: claims were or could have been raised in Windsong I; thus barred	Affirmed — court deemed summary judgment to have been decided on all issues presented, including res judicata, and Windsong failed to contest that ground in opening brief
Effect of oral bench ruling vs written order	Windsong relied on court's oral statement applying statute of limitations	Red Apple relied on written order’s blanket grant and argued all briefed defenses applied	Written order controls; when order omits basis it is deemed to rule on all issues presented by the parties; appellate review limited to arguments raised in opening brief
Raising new issues in reply brief	Windsong attempted to rebut res judicata in reply brief	Red Apple objected that plaintiff waived the argument by not raising it in opening brief	Rejected — arguments first raised in reply are untimely and cannot preserve the issue on appeal

Windsong Enters., Inc. v. Upton, 366 Ark. 23, 233 S.W.3d 145 (Ark. 2006) (prior litigation resolving related tort claim)
Nat'l Home Ctrs., Inc. v. Coleman, 370 Ark. 119, 257 S.W.3d 862 (Ark. 2007) (written order controls over oral bench ruling)
Hardin v. Bishop, 430 S.W.3d 49 (Ark. 2013) (blanket written summary-judgment grants are deemed to encompass all grounds presented)
Quarles v. Courtyard Gardens Health & Rehab., LLC, 488 S.W.3d 513 (Ark. 2016) (party must raise issues in opening brief; appellate review limited accordingly)
English v. Robbins, 452 S.W.3d 566 (Ark. 2014) (procedural waiver principles on appeal)
Pearrow v. Feagin, 778 S.W.2d 941 (Ark. 1989) (preclusion principles)
Jewell v. Fletcher, 377 S.W.3d 176 (Ark. 2010) (issues cannot be raised first in reply brief)