Betty Dickey

This case involved Rose Harwell-Williams appealing a circuit court order from a permanency planning hearing and dependency-neglect adjudication regarding her children, C.H. and S.H., after they were removed from her care due to lack of supervision and other issues. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decisions, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to conduct further hearings, including on termination of parental rights, despite the filing of a notice of appeal, because Arkansas law allows the juvenile division to retain jurisdiction in cases involving out-of-home placements. The court also addressed the finality of orders, noting that the order was final as to one child but not the other, and rejected arguments about the timeliness of the dependency-neglect petition.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned whether judgment liens obtained against Tiffany Johnson attached to a marital home that was subject to Robert Johnson's homestead exemption claim following the couple's second divorce and the property's subsequent sale. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings that the homestead exemption barred attachment of the liens, concluding instead that Robert had abandoned his homestead rights by permanently vacating the home, retaining only a key for maintenance purposes, and participating in a voluntary property settlement agreement that required the sale. The court reasoned that the divorce-related sale was not a forced sale preserving the exemption and that Robert's post-divorce conduct demonstrated clear intent to relinquish homestead protection, allowing the liens to attach to the property.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

The case concerned the validity of a 1982 postnuptial agreement between Paula Jane Stewart and her late husband James R. Stewart, under which each spouse waived rights to the other's property acquired before or during the marriage, including elective share and inheritance rights upon death. The trial court upheld the agreement and denied Mrs. Stewart any interest in her husband's estate; on appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that postnuptial agreements are enforceable in Arkansas under general contract principles even without specific statutory authorization, that mutual releases of property claims supplied adequate consideration, and that the husband's attorney had no legal duty to advise Mrs. Stewart to obtain independent counsel or to include such advice in the document. The court rejected arguments that the agreement was void at common law or that the requirements of the state's prenuptial agreement statute applied.

family lawproperty

In Perry v. Baptist Health, Dr. Bobby Perry sued Baptist Health for breach of a professional services contract seeking approximately $1,000,000 in damages, and Baptist Health filed a counterclaim for $4,000 alleging breach by Perry. A jury rejected both claims, awarding no damages to either side, after which the trial court granted Baptist Health $65,000 in attorney’s fees as the prevailing party under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-308. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that a defendant who successfully defends the primary claim qualifies as the prevailing party even if its own counterclaim fails, because prevailing-party status is determined by the overall outcome of the case rather than success on discrete issues. The court further held that once a party is deemed prevailing, the trial court has discretion to award reasonable fees for the entire litigation, including expenses tied to unsuccessful arguments.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved Kevin Tate's conviction by a jury for the first-degree murder of his girlfriend Melissa Portwood, for which he received a 40-year sentence. Tate appealed on four grounds, claiming error in the admission of testimony that he fired the murder weapon near a witness two days before the killing, the introduction of evidence placing his character in issue, the denial of a mistrial based on the prosecutor's closing arguments, and the admission of photographs of the victim's life during the penalty phase. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the prior incident was properly admitted under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) because its proximity to the crime made it independently relevant to issues such as intent or absence of mistake or accident. The court further held that the other evidentiary rulings and the denial of mistrial did not constitute an abuse of discretion or reversible error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Dorsey Ainsworth's appeal from the Union County Circuit Court's denial of his motions to dismiss criminal proceedings and a petition to revoke probation, as well as the entry of a nunc pro tunc judgment and disposition order four years after his guilty plea to conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court held that Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-90-105 does not require entry of judgment within thirty days and is not mandatory, allowing for nunc pro tunc entry to correct the record of the original sentence. It reasoned that prior case law interpreting similar rules supports that the timing provision is directory rather than mandatory, and the modification of the fine in the order accounted for prior payments without improperly altering the record. The court also found that other issues, such as speedy trial and evidentiary rulings, were either not preserved or without merit due to lack of prejudice or proffer.

criminal lawprocedure