*1 laVL, Findings Fact and App. Law Conclusions of FARRIS, M.D., Appellant Felicia the circuit court entered Before decree, Gary filed a motion the foreclosure fact findings of and conclusions specific Cynthia L. CONGER C.P.A. 52(a) Ark. R. P. Civ. pursuant of law Management, decree, subsequent The court’s Appellees entered, findings of fact and con set forth law, although precise not the
clusions of No. CV-15-622 Gary had and conclusions findings Arkansas, Appeals Court of Gary argues now requested. I, II & III. DIVISIONS 52(a). Rule comply court failed to disagree. We Opinion April Delivered 52(a) impose not
Rule does judge; trial
severe burden on the brief, definite,
judge need make
pertinent findings of fact and conclusions
upon the contested matters. CenterPoint Green, 2012 Ark.
Energy Gas Trans. Co. v.
not it found the facts the give
it did or detailed reasons for its deci Rather, findings
sion. should be appellate enough to enable
court to the factual basis and understand
analytical process by which the trial court The rule
reached its decision. Id. does
require specific findings every on each and question arising
factual in the lawsuit. Wallace,
Weathersbee v.
relevant and the basis for its rul-
ings purрose is clear. therefore see no be served a remand on this issue.
Affirmed. JJ., Vaught, agree.
Virden and Grp., Consequently, Pipeline to the Cochran fee award. Joint topic. do not Louisiana v. address See *2 three-year statute of limitations attendant agree actions. af- and firm. dispute.
The facts of the case are not in Farris and entered into a contract CWM agreed provide which wealth- CWM management services to Farris. No- On op- vember Farris learned of an portunity purchase parcel of real es- sale, tate at a foreclosure and she asked money Fidelity CWM to transfer from her personal Investment account to her check- account so that she could at Far- property the sale. CWM advised |2that initiating timely ris the cutoff for (FRWN) Federal Reserve Wire Network money p.m. transfer was 3:00 on Novem- 13; however, ber did not initiate the CWM p.m. transfer until 3:21 also initiated CWM transfer, Clearing an Automated House transfer, rather than a FRWN which days would take several to clear. The property was sold someone else ultimately pur- sale. Farris was able to property, spend chase the she had to but $51,843.98 $22,286.70. to do so instead of com- Farris filed breach-of-eontract Co., PLLC, Rock, by: Little Cullen & 10, 2013,1 plaint against CWM on October Cullen, appellant. Tim for J. that, asserting by failing to transfer funds, had breached its written CWM Hargis, appellee. David fоr agreement with her. wealth-management WHITEAKER, Judge PHILLIP T. restitution, profits, lost costs sought fees, interest, puni- and prejudgment Farris, M.D., | appeals from an ]Felicia damages. tive filed a motion CWM County Court order of the Pulaski Circuit grounds that Farris’s com- dismiss on the summary granting judg- the motion for tort, than in con- plaint sounded in rather by appellees Cynthia Conger ment filеd tract, three-year thus the statute of (collec- Management for a action had ex- CWM). found tively, The circuit court subsequently filed a motion pired. CWM of action sounded in that Farris’s cause summary judgment, asserting the same contract, for rather than in negligence, reasoning. that her was barred 2005). 56-111(a) (Repl. five-year
1. A breach-of-cоntract claim has
§
limitations. Ark.Code Ann.
16-
statute of
motion
granted
McQuay Guntharp,
court
CWM’s
what different.
The circuit
The court found the
that in
summary judgment.
supreme
explained
such
circumstances,
appellate
contained a claim of
court “must
contract,
reaching
but then noted that
look to the
itself’
its
regarding
then becomes whethеr the
conclusions
the statute of limita
“the
the contract
is the sort of
tions. 331 Ark.
reference to
*3
Horn,
(citing O’Bryant
the
of
specific promise
transforms
584
v.
297
617,
(1989);
Dunlap
from one for
into one Ark.
Id.
We view
evidence
S.W.3d 377.
party against
most
to the
whom
favorable
Farris’s
states that her
filed, resolving
the' motion was
all doubts
action is one for breach of contrаct.
In
against the moving party.
and inferences
order
the contract statute of limitations
However, a different
applies
standard
apply,
there must have been a breach of
appeal.
a specific promise. Sturgis v.
Thus,
the circuit
dismissal Ark.
court’s
Brandon J. plain- to ask circuit courts decide how a characterized. tiffs should be |7I majori- from dissent respectfully development not a on the This is desirable circuit Like the court before ty’s opinion. whole, especially given gate the wide this it, judged the Far- court has merit of creates. arguably case focusing rather than claim ris’s contract circuit the sole issue was before the ap- The claim-characterization doctrine it dismissed Farris’s amended court when line of plied this case stems from short accepting allegations all of her complaint: *5 primarily complaints cases that involved true, lоoking only at the amended and where a was character- claim the written contract that complaint and purpose ized as a contract claim for the of it, allege did she the Farris attached avoiding periods the shorter limitations claim “gist” purpose a contract for the of apply that in tort cases. As the typically five-year the statute- deciding of whether majority recognizes, itself when or two period applies? of-limitations The answer apply, more statutes of limitations could yes. winning she has a or is Whether then must determine the core of the courts not before us. losing claim is by looking solely at the case 466, v. Ark. McQuay Guntharp, 331 963 fundamentals, turns on and a This case (1998). But if is doubt S.W.2d 583 there pleading party is that a basic tenet applied, on which statute should be courts claim if a contract she “assertfs] states gives a plaintiff should favor the one a valid and enforceable con- existence of more, less, Sturgis not time. v. defendant, plaintiff tract and between 41, 48, 335 Ark. 977 220 S.W.2d thereunder, obligation of the defendant (“If two or more statutes limitations defendant, damages and violation apply, generally long- the statute with the resulting plaintiff from the breach.” period govern.”). est limitations will This Health, 238, 244, Perry Baptist v. 358 applied basic rule was not in this case. (2004). 189 58 S.W.3d certainly to her amended a writ- The time-bar can turn attached plaintiff between the and has satisfied Ar- ten whether parties’ fact-pleading requirements. it governed stated that wealth- kansas’s view, however, management relationship. McQuay, supra. my also factu- She ally alleged Conger sufficiently breached the Farris stated a contract agreement by failing correctly part, and time- because “a breach of contract is ly merely a tort if it consists execute transaction as the not treated as (nonfeasance) required Conger written contract to do. a failure to act as distin-
689 affirmatively wrongful majority Moody, an act The doesn’t guished from address (misfeasance).” though Nat’l it invoke two Morrow v. First does other cases 568, 550 Springs, Bank Hot 261 Ark. its conclusion Farris’s com- com plaint possibly Farris’s amended could not assert a contract S.W.2d plaint necessarily allege misfea claim. does Instead, alleges sance. she The first case is attorney-malpractice an perform in with a failed to accordance case, Sturgis, 335 Ark. 217. S.W.2d term. consis wholly contractual That is Here, no particular professional-responsi- See, e.g., a contract Zu tent with claim. bility malpractice ar- rule or statute was Plus, v. Architecture 328 Ark.
fari gued court to the circuit so as to bring this (1996) (plaintiff’s com Sturgis’s case within orbit. The second plaint sufficiently pled a breach-of-contract put |10stock my colleagues Tony case in is five-year ap claim and period Woods, Ltd., plied). S.W.3d 327 .recently, correctly, There, ap- This court their clients sued accountant in con- plied gist-of-the-eomplaint rule tract tort because the accountant Tarvin, Moody allegedly caused IRS audit. The con- There, Moody alleged that provisions he sustained tract that case were admit- injuries a main- physical tedly serious caused broad—“duties [for the accountant person perform] tenance who worked for the Tar- knowledge, to the best of his skill, park they ability” vins at the trailer owned. acknowl- —and Moody edged contended that the had a circuit Tarvins that the court’s “conclusion provide duty living him with a safe that the action is environment as a result of landlord- supported their the fact further relationship they tenant knew or original complaints by appellants filed al- leged negligence, should have known of the maintenance but were soon *6 person’s violent tendencies. Id. аmended to include of contract.” Moody 138-39, a attached written landlord-tenant Id. at 55 S.W.3d at So 330-31. contract to his unlike Tony distinguishable Id. But is case, case, too, question there was a a whether from this technical matter. Moody signed And even the contract. problem deepest majority with the in Moody primarily contract addressed opinion point legal finery is pet yard rent payments, policies, and preexisting whether cases can be suffi- maintenance. Id. The contract said noth- not, ciently distinguished from this one or protecting harm about tenants from interpret but that it must contract befall third-party’s that could them at a conclude that written can’t hand. affirmed the circuit court’s possibly promise. actionable judgment summary favor Tarvins’ because, tack again, This is a curious once Moody’s complaint because not come did fundamental tenets of contract law oppose alleging close to contract and the parties the maneuver. What the under- deadline to filе tort expired. claims had paragraph stood a certain mean—and the conduct it could or could not cover—is presented Moody a case in which the often the merits contract reject See, justifiably courts were asked case. Prochazka e.g., v. Bee-Three Dev., LLC, plaintiffs characterization of сom- Ark. App. her own plaint. Moody. But this case Maybe provision is far from paragraph in the then concluded that the amended that is not actionable com- a disclaimer plaint solely com- sounded tort. com- that Farris asserts her
manner time-barred, answer, plaint should not have been Maybe not. Whatever the plaint. especially defending party no has contract-interpre- as a when strikes me the issue presented any why applying reason claim’s merit. point on the tation longer period prejudi- would be allure to end this case I understand the cial. record developed given court. But on the in the circuit made Hoofman, JJ., join. Glover and whole, deny unwilling I am a limitations ar- merit decision based lnon in an grounded that is uncommon
gument inherently claim-characteriza- slippery The circuit court’s decision
tion doctrine. (1) it consid- be reversed because
should material
ered outside