Case Title: David Wilson v. Arthur Fullerton and Bradley Motor Company, Incorporated

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1998-03-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
David WILSON v. Arthur FULLERTON and Bradley
Motor Company, Incorporated

97-358                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered March 5, 1998


1.   Appeal & error -- acceptance of benefits of decree or judgment
     -- benefits inconsistent with relief sought on appeal and
     detrimental to the rights of others -- appeal barred --
     dismissal required. -- The acceptance of benefits of a decree
     or judgment that are inconsistent with the relief sought on
     appeal and detrimental to the rights of others bars the appeal
     and requires its dismissal.

2.   Appeal & error -- acceptance of amount less than appellant
     contends is due him -- when appeal estopped. -- The acceptance
     of an amount less than appellant contends is due him is an
     estoppel against his appeal only when, by seeking to gain more
     by the appeal, he risks a smaller recovery on reversal. 

3.   Appeal & error -- prosecution of appeal -- could result in
     apellants recovering less than that awarded him by judgment
     from which he appealed. -- Appellant, by prosecuting his
     appeal, incurred the hazard of recovering less than was
     awarded him by the judgment appealed from; were appellees to 
     prevail in their appeal and obtain a new trial on the reversal
     and remand of this case, a jury on retrial could well
     determine no compensatory damages should be awarded; as a
     consequence, appellant would not only risk the loss of the
     $5,118.45 judgment against appellees, he could also lose his
     reduced award of $25,000 in punitive damages. 

4.   Appeal & error -- appellant's successful execution of writ of
     execution could have resulted in his benefiting from full
     amount of remitted judgment -- such action inconsistent with
     claim of right appellant sought to establish on appeal.-- By
     filing a writ of execution in satisfaction of the remitted
     punitive damages, appellant has also taken action that was
     detrimental to the rights of the appellees; as a result of
     appellant's attempt at execution, the appellee was forced to
     post a supersedeas bond and obtain a stay of execution; had
     this not been done, appellant could have successfully executed
     the writ, and thereby possibly accept and benefit from the
     full amount of the remitted judgment; such action is entirely
     inconsistent with the claim of right appellant sought to
     establish on appeal.     

5.   Appeal & error -- appellant waived right of appeal by virtue
     of his execution efforts -- appeal dismissed. -- When
     appellant voluntarily accepted partial satisfaction of the
     judgment, and later issued a writ of execution in an effort to
     satisfy the entire judgment against appellees, he knew there
     was a dispute as to whether he would be entitled to the
     remitted judgments he had obtained, he knew both appellees had
     challenged all amounts of damages owed, and was well aware
     that they intended to continue that challenge, since they had
     filed a cross appeal; appellant, has, therefore, waived his
     right of appeal by virtue of his execution efforts and the
     satisfaction of judgment against the defendant bank;
     consequently, his appeal was dismissed.

6.   Appeal & error -- appellees asked for and received reduction
     in compensatory and punitive damages awarded against them --
     on appeal appellees could not complain of ruling in their
     favor. -- Where appellees asked for and received a reduction
     in the compensatory and punitive damages awarded against them,
     they could not on appeal complain of a ruling in their favor.

7.   Appeal & error -- appellants argued that appellants were 
     allowed to pursue two mutually exclusive remedies -- failure
     to challenge trial court's actions below prevented challenge
     on appeal. -- Appellees argued that, while a jury could have
     found against the appellees for deceit for fraudulently
     selling the vehicles or the bank for conversion, appellant
     could not recover against all of them; however, the trial
     court recognized this inconsistency and entered a judgment
     which avoided double recovery, ordering that appellant could
     only recover $4,710.00 from one of the defendants, but not all
     of them; appellees never challenged that part of the trial
     court's order below, and they may not do so now.

8.   Trial -- election of remedies doctrine. -- The election-of-
     remedies doctrine bars more than one recovery on inconsistent
     remedies.  

9.   Appeal & error -- appellees had no opportunity to raise
     election-of-remedies doctrine at trial -- appellees entitled
     to have $5,118.45 judgment against them reflect its
     satisfaction in amount of $4,710.00. -- Where appellees had no
     opportunity to raise their election-of-remedies doctrine at
     trial, because the bank's satisfaction of the trial court's
     award of $4,710.00 in compensatory damages was not filed until
     after appellant filed his notice of appeal; the trial court
     recognized the double recovery possibility and eliminated that
     problem, ordering that appellant could not collect the
     $4,710.00 judgment more than once, appellant's acceptance
     payment of this amount from the bank precluded further
     recovery of that amount from appellees; the appellees were
     entitled to have the $5,118.45 judgment against them reflect
     its satisfaction in the amount of $4,710.00, leaving a balance
     owed in the smaller amount of $500.00.


     Appeal from Bradley Circuit Court; Sam Pope, Judge; appeal
dismissed on direct appeal; affirmed in part and reversed in part
on cross-appeal.
     Bill G. Wells and Thomas D. Deen, for appellant.
     Epley, Epley, & Parker, Ltd., by:  Tim S. Parker, for
appellees.
     Tom Glaze, Justice.
     Appellant David Wilson is a used car dealer who purchased
three used trucks from appellees Bradley Motor Company, Inc., and
its president, Arthur Fullerton.  At the time of purchase, First
State Bank of Warren held title to two of the trucks that had been
repossessed from a Mr. Thomas and Mr. Lephiew.  Chrysler Credit
Corporation possessed the title to the third truck, which is not at
issue in this litigation.  This appeal ensues from Wilson's suit
against Bradley Motor and Fullerton wherein Wilson alleged the tort
of deceit, claiming they willfully and wantonly refused to give him
the titles to the Thomas and Lephiew trucks.  Fullerton and Bradley
Motor subsequently filed a third-party complaint against First
State Bank, and asserted that the Bank was solely responsible for
failing to convey the two titles to Wilson.  Wilson then brought
suit directly against the Bank for the tort of conversion, alleging
the Bank converted his titles after having been paid for them.
     The parties' dispute was tried to a jury which awarded Wilson
a verdict against Fullerton for compensatory damages in the amount
of $50,000.00 and $100,000.00 in punitive damages; against Bradley
Motor for $25,000.00 in compensatory damages and $25,000 in
punitive damages; and against First State Bank for $4,710.00 in 
compensatory damages.  Afterwards on posttrial motions, the trial
court found the verdicts inconsistent because the same jury
instruction on compensatory damages was given against Fullerton and
Bradley Motor, yet the jury returned different awards.  Also, the
court found that, because of the different theories of tort
liability pursued against the Bank and Fullerton and Bradley Motor,
Wilson had a potential for receiving a double recovery for the same
economic loss.  
     The trial court, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that
Wilson's compensatory damages against both Fullerton and Bradley
Motor amounted to $5,118.45.  Because these same expenses incurred
by Wilson involved the same economic loss attributed to First State
Bank, the trial court ordered that Wilson could recover $4,710.00
on only one of the judgments against Fullerton, Bradley Motor, or
the Bank, and not all three.  In addition, the trial court reduced
Fullerton's punitive damages to $25,000.00 (the same amount awarded
against Bradley Motor), finding the jury's larger amount resulted
from passion and prejudice, likely due to Fullerton having failed
to appear and defend his case.  The trial court's judgment was
filed on August 30, 1996.
     Unhappy with the trial court's order reducing the jury verdict
amounts for compensatory and punitive damages, Wilson filed this
appeal on September 27, 1996, arguing that the trial court's
remittiturs were made in error.  Since First State Bank satisfied
its judgment on September 23, 1996, and filed it of record on
October 7, 1996, in the full amount of $4,710.00, Wilson did not
appeal from that judgment.  However, Fullerton and Bradley Motor
filed a timely cross-appeal, on October 2, 1996, asserting, as they
did in their posttrial motions, that the evidence did not support
the compensatory damages awarded.  They further argue that, because
compensatory and punitive damages are interwoven, any error made
with respect to one award of damages requires a retrial of the
whole case.  Fullerton and Bradley Motor further argue that
Wilson's verdicts against them for deceit and against the Bank for
conversion are mutually exclusive and amount to contradictory
verdicts as well as double recovery.
     After the parties filed their respective appeals and the Bank
satisfied its judgment, Wilson, on May 21, 1997, caused a writ of
execution to be issued against real and personal properties owned
by Fullerton and Bradley Motor.  Fullerton and Bradley Motor
responded on May 22, 1997, by filing a corporate supersedeas bond
in the amount of $25,749.84, and on May 23, 1997, the court stayed
all executions, levies, and garnishments pending this appeal. 
Following Wilson's action to execute on his August 30, 1996
judgment, Fullerton and Bradley Motor filed a motion to dismiss
Wilson's appeal.  They first claim Wilson cannot appeal a judgment
on the one hand and attempt to satisfy it on the other. 
Additionally, Fullerton and Bradley Motor submit that, under the
election-of-remedies doctrine, Wilson's acceptance of First State
Bank's satisfaction of Wilson's conversion claim against the Bank
requires the setting aside of his deceit claim against Fullerton
and Bradley Motor.  Because we agree with Fullerton's and Bradley
Motor's first claim, we need not fully address their election-of-
remedies argument at this stage.  Instead, we will defer discussing
that point when dealing with Fullerton's and Bradley Motor's cross-
appeal.
     In considering Fullerton's and Bradley Motor's dismissal
argument, the rule is well established that the acceptance of
benefits of a decree or judgment which are inconsistent with the
relief sought on appeal, and detrimental to the rights of others,
bars the appeal and requires its dismissal.  See Shepherd v. State
Auto Property & Casualty Ins. Co., 312 Ark. 502,