Case Title: Renfro v. Adkins

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-02-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
Janet RENFRO, Individually and as Mother and
Next Friend of Brandee L. Hodges, a Minor v.
Jerry Eugene ADKINS and Juanita C. Adkins,
Individually and as Executrix of the Estate
of Frederick Earl Adkins, Jr., Deceased;
Frederick Earl Adkins; and Rebecca E. Adkins

95-500                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered February 5, 1996


1.   Civil procedure -- voluntary nonsuit of a claim distinguished
     from voluntary nonsuit with respect to an opposing party --
     nonsuit here involved a party and so was appealable. -- A
     voluntary nonsuit of a claim by a party prevents an order
     which decides the remaining claims of that party from being
     final for purposes of an appeal; however, the taking of a
     voluntary nonsuit with respect to an opposing party, as
     opposed to a claim, does not adversely affect the finality of
     an order regarding the remaining parties; where appellant's
     nonsuit involved a party rather than a claim, the orders
     appealed from were final and appealable. 

2.   Civil procedure -- service of process -- Nonresident Motorists
     Act allowed service of process on the Secretary of State --
     trial court had in personam jurisdiction over appellee. -- The
     Nonresident Motorist Act permits service of process on a
     nonresident owner of a vehicle by designating the Secretary of
     State as the nonresident owner's agent for service of process
     in exchange for the privilege of operating a vehicle owned by
     the nonresident on Arkansas highways; since the nonresident
     owner's "agent" can be personally served within the state
     under the Act, the trial court was able to obtain in personam
     jurisdiction over appellee Juanita Adkins by service on the
     Arkansas Secretary of State. 

3.   Civil procedure -- service perfected under the Nonresident
     Motorist Act -- trial court had personal jurisdiction over
     appellee. -- Where service was perfected on Juanita Adkins by
     serving the Secretary of State pursuant to the Nonresident
     Motorist Act, and where Juanita Adkins referred to the pickup
     truck which she turned over to appellee Jerry Adkins as "my
     Ford Truck"; and where the certificate of title reflected that
     12 days after the accident she transferred title as executrix
     from her deceased husband's estate to herself, the appellate
     court determined that service on appellee Juanita Adkins was
     proper under the Nonresident Motorist Act and reversed the
     trial court on this point.

4.   Judgment -- standards for summary judgment -- factors on
     review. -- On review, the court need only decide if the
     granting of summary judgment was appropriate based on whether
     the evidentiary items presented by the moving party in support
     of the motion left a material question of fact unanswered; the
     burden of sustaining a motion for summary judgment is always
     the responsibility of the moving party; all proof submitted
     must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party
     resisting the motion, and any doubts and inferences must be
     resolved against the moving party; summary judgment is proper
     when a claiming party fails to show that there is a genuine
     issue as to a material fact and when the moving party is
     entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. 

5.   Judgment -- summary judgment -- once prima facie entitlement
     to summary judgment established, burden shifts to opposing
     party. -- Once the moving party establishes a prima facie
     entitlement to summary judgment by affidavits or other
     supporting documents or depositions, the opposing party must
     meet proof with proof and demonstrate the existence of a
     material issue of fact. 

6.   Negligence -- negligent entrustment -- necessary elements of
     proof. -- Proof regarding the following elements is necessary
     to establish a case of negligent entrustment: (1) the
     entrustee was incompetent, inexperienced or reckless; (2) the
     entrustor knew or had reason to know of the entrustee's
     condition or proclivities; (3) there was an entrustment of the
     chattel; (4) the entrustment created an appreciable risk of
     harm to the plaintiff and a relational duty on the part of the
     defendant; and (5) the harm to the plaintiff was proximately
     or legally caused by the negligence of the defendant.

7.   Judgment -- several material issues of fact existed as to
     appellee Juanita Adkins -- trial court erred in granting
     summary judgment as to this negligent entrustment issue. -- 
     Where, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to 
     appellee Juanita Adkins, there were several genuine issues of
     material fact including:  an issue as to who actually owned
     the pickup truck in question, whether appellee Juanita Adkins
     had any knowledge of appellee Jerry Adkins's propensity to
     drive while intoxicated, and the existence of conflicting
     affidavits concerning the extent of her knowledge on this
     point, a genuine issue of material fact existed, and the trial
     court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee
     Juanita Adkins on the negligent entrustment count.

8.   Judgment -- summary judgment properly granted -- no evidence
     that either party supplied truck to appellee. -- The trial
     court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of
     appellees Frederick and Rebecca Adkins on the claim of
     negligent entrustment where there was no proof to suggest that
     either Frederick or Rebecca Adkins was acting as an agent of
     the estate or of Juanita Adkins, nor was there evidence that
     either party "supplied" the truck to appellee Jerry Adkins,
     directly or indirectly, or even exercised any control over it.
     
9.   Torts -- tort of outrage discussed. -- The supreme court has
     taken a very narrow view of claims of outrage; one is subject
     to liability for outrage if he or she willfully or wantonly
     causes severe emotional distress to another by extreme and
     outrageous conduct -- conduct that is so outrageous in
     character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all
     possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious,
     and utterly intolerable in civilized society; the emotional
     distress for which damages may be sought must be so severe
     that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it; in
     addition, the tort of outrage requires clear-cut proof, merely
     describing the conduct as outrageous does not make it so.

10.  Torts -- tort of outrage claim correctly dismissed -- claim
     not supported by the proof. -- The trial court correctly
     granted the motion for summary judgment on the outrage claim
     where the negligent entrustment claim against appellee
     Frederick Adkins was correctly dismissed and the remaining
     allegations fell woefully short of supporting a claim of
     outrage.

11.  Judgment -- propriety of summary judgment in favor of
     appellees Frederick and Rebecca Adkins not addressed -- no
     basis existed for a claim against them. -- Whether the trial
     court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees
     Frederick and Rebecca Adkins on the issue of fraudulent
     transfer was not addressed because appellant voluntarily
     dismissed appellee Jerry Adkins from the lawsuit; without a
     claim that Jerry Adkins made the fraudulent transfer, that is,
     had some ownership interest in the assets and made the
     transfer with intent to defraud, the court could discern no
     basis for a claim against his brother and sister.


     Appeal from Saline Circuit Court; Phillip Shirron, Judge;
affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
     Boswell, Tucker & Brewster, by:  Ted Boswell and John T.
Holleman, for appellant.
     Warford, Revels & McCallister, by:  Bobby D. McCallister, for
appellee Juanita C. Adkins.
     Huckabay, Munson, Rowlett & Tilley, P.A., for appellee
Frederick Earl Adkins.
     Matthews, Sanders, & Sayes, by: Margaret M. Newton and Roy
Gene Sanders, for appellee Rebecca E. Adkins.

     Robert L. Brown, Justice.  
     Associate Justice Robert L. Brown
February 5, 1996  *ADVREP7*



JANET RENFRO, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF
BRANDEE L. HODGES, A MINOR,
                    APPELLANT,

V.

JERRY EUGENE ADKINS AND JUANITA
C. ADKINS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF
FREDERICK EARL ADKINS, JR.,
DECEASED; FREDERICK EARL
ADKINS; AND REBECCA E. ADKINS,
                    APPELLEES,

95-500




APPEAL FROM THE SALINE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. 92-708-1,
HON. PHILLIP SHIRRON, JUDGE,




AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN
PART AND REMANDED.





     The appellants, Janet Renfro and Brandee L. Hodges, appeal an
order granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees,
Frederick Earl Adkins, III, Rebecca Adkins, and Juanita Adkins,
individually and as executrix of the estate of Frederick Earl
Adkins, Jr.  They contend that summary judgment was inappropriate
because genuine issues of material fact remain to be decided.  They
further urge that the trial court erred in finding that it did not
have personal jurisdiction over Juanita Adkins.  
     On November 12, 1992, Jerry Adkins was driving a pickup truck
that was titled to his deceased father, Frederick Adkins, Jr., when
he collided with a car in which Brandee L. Hodges was a passenger. 
Hodges was seriously injured as a result of the accident.  It was
later determined that Jerry Adkins was intoxicated at the time of
the accident.    
     Janet Renfro (both individually and on behalf of her daughter,
Brandee Hodges) filed a negligence claim against Jerry Adkins. 
Renfro later amended her complaint to include a negligent
entrustment action against Juanita Adkins, who was Jerry Adkins's
stepmother, and sued her in her individual capacity and as
executrix of the estate of Frederick Adkins, Jr.  Juanita Adkins
was sued as an individual because the will of Frederick Adkins, Jr.
left the pickup truck to her.  Renfro alleged that Juanita Adkins,
as a resident of Louisiana, entrusted the pickup truck to Jerry
Adkins in Louisiana with knowledge of his past history of reckless
operation of automobiles and with knowledge that the vehicle would
be driven in Arkansas without liability insurance.
     Juanita Adkins answered and moved to dismiss Renfro's
complaint on grounds that the Arkansas trial court lacked personal
jurisdiction over her because she resided in Louisiana.  She later
moved for summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claim and
contended that ownership in the vehicle had never vested in her and
that ownership of the vehicle had been transferred to Jerry Adkins
prior to the accident.  She further asserted that there was no
evidence that she knew or had reason to know of Jerry Adkins's
driving record.  
     On July 22, 1992, Renfro filed a second amended complaint.  In
this complaint, she added allegations of negligent entrustment,
tort of outrage, and fraudulent conveyance against Frederick
Adkins, III, and Rebecca Adkins, brother and sister of Jerry
Adkins.  The new allegations were based on a "jailhouse" letter
written by Jerry Adkins to his wife, Phyllis.  The letter stated
that he had "stashed" money with Frederick and Rebecca Adkins.
     Frederick and Rebecca Adkins answered the amended complaint
and later moved for summary judgment, claiming that the complaint
failed to state a cause of action for any of the claims alleged. 
Attached to their motions were their affidavits and an affidavit by
Jerry Adkins.  Jerry Adkins's affidavit stated that the reference
that he had "stashed" moneys referred to the disclaimer he had made
to his grandmother's inheritance in the probate of her estate prior
to the accident.  The money disclaimed went to Frederick and
Rebecca Adkins under their grandmother's will.  He further averred
that they were the legal owners of the money and that there were no
other funds to be transferred.  He added that he took possession
and ownership of the pickup truck when he went to Louisiana and
that neither Frederick nor Rebecca Adkins ever had an interest in
it.  His brother's and sister's affidavits confirmed the sworn
statements in Jerry Adkins's affidavit.
     On February 9, 1995, the trial court granted Juanita Adkins's
motion for summary judgment on the negligent entrustment claims. 
The trial court also granted summary judgment on all the claims
asserted against Frederick and Rebecca Adkins.  Finally, the trial
court granted Juanita Adkins's motion to dismiss on the grounds of
lack of personal jurisdiction.  Also on February 9, 1995, Renfro
moved to voluntarily dismiss her claims against Jerry Adkins, the
remaining party to the lawsuit.  The trial court granted the motion
and dismissed the action against Jerry Adkins without prejudice.
     Although no issue concerning the finality of the order has
been raised by the parties, our recent decision in Driggers v.
Locke, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.2d ___ (Jan. 16, 1996), deserves
mention.  In Driggers, we distinguished Haile v. Arkansas Power &
Light Co., 322 Ark. 29,