2016 Ark. App. 262
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Debbie Worsham (appellant) sued Roy and Teresa Day (appellees) with claims including breach of contract and promissory estoppel; jury trial occurred March 10–11, 2015.
- Jury returned verdicts: $115,000 for Worsham on breach of contract; no damages on promissory estoppel; verdicts against appellees on unjust enrichment and fraud. Verdict forms were read and filed March 11, 2015.
- Appellees moved for JNOV or, alternatively, a new trial on March 23, 2015; the circuit court granted the motion and later denied Worsham’s motion for reconsideration.
- The addendum and record submitted to the Court of Appeals include the motion, the order granting it, and the denial of reconsideration, but do not include a circuit-court judgment reflecting the jury’s verdicts.
- Because no written judgment entry adopting the jury verdicts was in the record, the appellate court could not determine whether post-trial motions were timely under Ark. R. Civ. P. 50(b) and 59(b), or whether subject-matter jurisdiction/procedural timeliness was proper.
- The Court of Appeals therefore remanded to settle and supplement the record so the presence, content, and timing of the circuit-court judgment can be confirmed; it did not reach the substantive merits of Worsham’s arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit court abused discretion in granting new trial based on inconsistent verdicts | Worsham: new trial was improper because verdicts were not inconsistent | Days: new trial proper due to inconsistencies | Not addressed — remanded for record so timeliness/jurisdiction can be determined |
| Whether new trial was erroneous because a jury may find liability on multiple theories so long as damages aren’t duplicated | Worsham: jury may find multiple theories of liability; new trial inappropriate | Days: inconsistent verdicts warranted relief | Not addressed — remanded for record settlement |
| Whether appellees waived objections to verdict forms/instructions by consenting at trial | Worsham: Days waived right to object by agreeing to instructions/forms | Days: timely objected post-trial; no waiver | Not addressed — remanded for record settlement |
| Whether appellate review is proper given absence of a written judgment entry making the jury verdict effective | Worsham: (implicit) appellate review of circuit court orders is proper | Days: (implicit) post-judgment motions timely if judgment entry exists | Court: Appellate court cannot determine timeliness or jurisdiction without the circuit-court judgment; remanded to settle and supplement the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Timmons v. McCauley, 71 Ark. App. 97 (appellate court must raise subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Robinson v. Winston, 64 Ark. App. 170 (parties cannot confer subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Vanderpool v. Fidelity & Cas. Ins. Co., 327 Ark. 407 (subject-matter jurisdiction principles)
- Hoyle v. Faucher, 334 Ark. 529 (appellate courts must address jurisdiction even if parties do not)
- Nat’l Home Ctrs., Inc. v. Coleman, 370 Ark. 119 (oral bench orders are not effective until reduced to writing and entered)
- McGhee v. Ark. Bd. of Collection Agencies, 368 Ark. 60 (written entry requirement for effective orders)