Worsham v. Day, 574 S.W.3d 150

Worsham sold her liquor store and the Days took possession but later refused to pay the balance; Worsham sued for breach of contract in 2012.
A jury in March 2015 found for Worsham and awarded $115,000, but the circuit court later granted the Days a new trial.
The court of appeals remanded to have a written judgment entered; the circuit court entered a "Judgment Upon Jury Verdict" on May 25, 2016.
This court dismissed Worsham's appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction in Worsham II, holding the May 25, 2016 judgment reinstated the jury verdict; mandate issued June 13, 2017.
Worsham filed a motion for attorney's fees and costs on June 12, 2017; the circuit court denied the motion as untimely under Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(e) and denied reconsideration.
Worsham appealed, arguing (1) her fees motion was timely because the supreme court mandate (Worsham II) was the event that finally resolved the controversy, and (2) she was entitled to fees under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-308 without complying with Rule 54(e).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Worsham's attorney-fees motion was timely under Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(e)	The appellate mandate (Worsham II) was the final resolution that triggered the 14-day Rule 54(e) period, so her June 12, 2017 motion was timely	The final judgment was the May 25, 2016 written judgment; the 14-day clock ran from that entry and Worsham's June 12, 2017 motion was untimely	Court held the May 25, 2016 judgment was final for Rule 54(e); Worsham's motion was untimely and denial was affirmed
Whether Worsham could avoid Rule 54(e) filing requirements because she was statutorily entitled to fees under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-308	Statutory entitlement to contract fees can supply the basis for fees without a timely Rule 54(e) motion (or by oral request)	Even where statute authorizes fees, Rule 54(e) still governs timing; Worsham made no timely oral or written request	Court rejected the argument, distinguishing Swaim (where oral request was made promptly); affirmed denial

Worsham v. Day, 2017 Ark. 192, 519 S.W.3d 699 (mandate/motion-timing and appellate-jurisdiction discussion)
State Auto Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swaim, 338 Ark. 49, 991 S.W.2d 555 (oral post-verdict fee request may suffice under Rule 54(e) when statute provides basis)
Jones v. Flowers, 373 Ark. 213, 283 S.W.3d 551 (mandate vs. remand distinctions for when Rule 54(e) is triggered)
Norman v. Norman, 347 Ark. 682, 66 S.W.3d 635 (series of opinions addressing when appellate mandate triggers fee-timing rules)
Chrisco v. Sun Indus., Inc., 304 Ark. 227, 800 S.W.2d 717 (attorney's fees allowed only when statute provides)