Case Title: Hankins v. Department of Fin. & Admin.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-11-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
George HANKINS v. DEPARTMENT of FINANCE and
ADMINISTRATION; and Lawyers Surety
Corporation

96-1465                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered November 6, 1997


1.   Administrative law & procedure -- appeal from administrative
     order -- review directed to agency's decision. -- In an appeal
     from an administrative order, the supreme court's review is
     directed to the agency's decision, not the circuit court's. 

2.   Administrative law & procedure -- review of agency decision
     not possible -- record insufficient to show error. -- It is
     incumbent upon an appellant to bring up a record sufficient to
     show error; Rule 6 of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate
     Procedure provides that if any difference arises as to whether
     the record truly discloses what occurred in the trial court,
     the difference shall be submitted to and settled by that court
     and the record made to conform to the truth; here, appellant
     did not avail himself of this remedy; the supreme court could
     not review the agency's decision because the record was not
     complete. 

3.   Administrative law & procedure -- exhibits and testimony
     missing from record -- agency's decision summarily affirmed. -
     - Where there were exhibits and testimony missing from the
     record upon which appellant based much of his argument for
     reversal of the agency's decision, and it was his obligation
     to ensure that the record be made complete so that the supreme
     court could reach his arguments, appellant failed to meet his
     burden of producing a record sufficient for review; the
     agency's decision was summarily affirmed.

4.   Administrative law & procedure -- circuit court did not err in
     ordering appellant to reimburse appellee for transcript. --
     Where appellee ordered and paid for a transcript of the entire
     record, the deficiency in the record was not called to
     appellee's attention before the circuit court had assessed
     costs, and appellee's offer to supplement the record, made
     after the decision of the circuit court, was not accepted, the
     supreme court determined that because appellee paid for a
     transcript and was the prevailing party, the circuit court did
     not err in ordering appellant to reimburse appellee agency; it
     was incumbent upon appellant to ensure that a complete record
     was available for review.

5.   Civil procedure -- Ark. R. Civ. P. 68 discussed -- trial court
     need not award costs to prevailing party when no offer of
     judgment is made. -- Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 68
     requires the trial judge to order an offeree to pay the
     authorized costs after the making of a bona fide offer, if the
     judgment, exclusive of interest, is not more favorable than
     the offer; however, the trial court is not required to award
     costs to a prevailing party when no offer of judgment is made.

6.   Civil procedure -- no specific offer of judgment made on
     retrial -- trial court's denial of costs upheld. -- Where the
     surety company did not continue the offer of judgment made
     during the first trial, and no specific offer of judgment was
     made in the case on retrial, the trial court's denial of costs
     was upheld.


     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; John Ward, Judge; affirmed.
     Diana M. Maulding, for appellant.
     Brandon Lee Clark and Daniel Scott Smith, for appellee DF&A. 
     Joel Taylor, for appellee Lawyers Surety Corp.

     Ray Thornton, Justice.
     This is a second review of this controversy.  In 1991, George
Hankins, appellant, obtained a default judgment against Larry
McElroy for $25,869, on the basis of losses sustained from unpaid
promissory notes together with losses of $1,000 relating to the
sale of a Camaro and $1150 relating to the sale of a GMC truck.  In
an attempt to recover the McElroy judgment, Hankins sought a
declaratory judgment against Lawyers Security Company, the surety,
for a $25,000 bond required for McElroy as a motor-vehicle dealer. 
Lawyers offered to settle the claim by paying Hankins $2115
pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 68.  Hankins did not accept the offer. 
The trial court in its declaratory judgment ruled against Hankins,
finding that the bond could not be used to satisfy appellant's
judgment.
     On appeal, we reversed and dismissed without prejudice because
Hankins had not exhausted available administrative remedies.  We
held that the appropriate remedy was to seek payment under the bond
by presenting the default judgment to the Department of Finance &
Administration (DF&A) pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  23-112-603
(Supp. 1995).  Hankins v. McElroy, 313 Ark. 394, 855 S.W.2d 310
(1993) (Hankins I).
     Hankins renewed his efforts to collect his default judgment by
seeking administrative relief from DF&A and a hearing was held on
September 7, 1994, before an administrative law judge.  Hankins
argued that Lawyers was liable on the bond because McElroy's
actions in incurring the debts were sufficient to warrant the
suspension or revocation of his car dealer's license under the
provisions of Ark. Code Ann.  23-112-302, which provides for
recovery of such bonds.  The ALJ found that the transactions
between McElroy and Hankins were personal debts between businessmen
and not sufficient reason to cause suspension or revocation of the
license. 
     Hankins appealed the adverse decision to the circuit court,
which sustained the agency decision.  The court granted DF&A's
motion to be reimbursed for costs of producing the transcript
pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  25-15-212(d)(2) (Repl. 1996).  On
August 13, 1996, Lawyers' attorney moved to recover costs pursuant
to Ark. R. Civ. P. 68, which allows recovery of costs by an offeror
of judgment "[i]f the judgment exclusive of interest from the date
of offer finally obtained by the offeree is not more favorable than
the offer . . . . "   The court denied the motion.
     While Hankins's attorney was abstracting the record for review
by this court, it was discovered that portions of it were missing. 
On March 3, 1997, the circuit judge issued an order settling the
record and the ALJ's order was added.  The circuit judge noted in
a cover letter that the transcript of the administrative hearing
did not contain all of the testimony and that the missing portions
of the record of the administrative hearing were not in the
material considered by the circuit court; therefore, the record
could not be completed from the circuit court.  Hankins did not
seek to settle the record at the agency level.
     Hankins argues on appeal that the circuit court erred: (1) in
failing to consider the entire record of the administrative
proceeding; (2) in upholding the ALJ's order; and (3) in granting
DF&A judgment against him for costs in producing the transcript. 
Lawyers cross-appeals the denial of costs.  None of the arguments
has merit, and we affirm.
     We now proceed to review the issues before us in this appeal. 
Hankins argues that the circuit court erred in failing to consider
the entire record of the administrative proceeding, and in
upholding the ALJ's order.  These arguments appear to be based upon
the premise that we review the circuit court's decision in an
appeal from a proceeding by an administrative agency.  This premise
is incorrect.  In an appeal from an administrative order, our
review is directed to the agency's decision, not the circuit
court's.  Brimer v. Arkansas Contractors Lic. Bd., 312 Ark. 401,