Title: Hamilton v. Villines

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Larry HAMILTON, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated v. Floyd G. "Buddy"
VILLINES, III, et al.

95-191                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered February 19, 1996


1.   Civil procedure -- class actions -- notice. -- Arkansas Rule
     of Civil Procedure 23(c) provides, in part, that "[i]n any
     class action in which monetary relief is sought, including
     actions for damages and restitution, the court shall direct to
     the members of the class the best notice practicable under the
     circumstances, including individual notice to all members who
     can be identified through reasonable effort."

2.   Attorney's fees -- illegal exaction -- may not be recovered
     absent statute or rule permitting recovery -- attorney's fees
     not allowed in illegal-exaction case where no refund is
     sought. -- Arkansas Code Annotated  26-35-902(a) (Supp. 1995)
     permits the award of attorney's fees from funds recovered when
     an illegal exaction is held to have occurred and a "refund" is
     ordered to the taxpayers; the statute, however, does not
     address attorney's fees in a case in which no refund is
     sought; attorney's fees may not be recovered absent a statute
     or rule permitting such a recovery; attorney's fees are not to
     be allowed in an illegal-exaction case in which no refund is
     sought.
3.   Civil procedure -- class actions -- notice -- purpose of
     requiring. -- The purpose of requiring notice to class members
     who may have a monetary recovery in prospect is to allow them
     to decide whether to participate as members of the class; in
     a case in which a prospective class member has no individual
     claim to relief, there is no purpose in the notice requirement
     that would not obtain anytime a city or county is sued; it is
     not the purpose of Ark. R. Civ. P. 23(c) to require notice
     anytime a suit is brought against a public entity in which a
     "detriment" to it may occur.

4.   Civil procedure -- class actions -- notice -- chancellor's
     notice requirement improper -- matter reversed and remanded. -
     - The supreme court determined that it was improper for the
     chancellor to hold that "monetary relief" was in prospect and
     thus that Ark. R. Civ. P. 23(c) required individual notice to
     taxpayers; the matter was reversed and remanded.


     Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Annabelle C. Imber,
Chancellor; reversed and remanded.
     Kelly Law Firm, PLC, by: A.J. Kelly and A. Shawn K. Sibley,
for appellants.
     Nelwyn Davis, Pulaski County Att'y, and Hilburn, Calhoon,
Harper, Pruniski & Calhoun, Ltd., by: David M. Fuqua, for
appellees.

     David Newbern, Justice. 2-19-96 *ADVREP4*

                                   95-191
LARRY HAMILTON, on Behalf          Opinion Delivered:
of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated                 Appeal from Pulaski Chancery
                                   Court (93-6504)
          Appellants
                                   Honorable Annabelle C. Imber,
     v.                            Chancellor

FLOYD G. "BUDDY" VILLINES,
III, et al.
          
          Appellees                Reversed and Remanded




                     David Newbern, Justice.
                                

     The appellant, Larry Hamilton, sought certification of a class
consisting of Pulaski County taxpayers.  His claim against the
appellees, Pulaski County Judge Floyd G. "Buddy" Villines, III, and
the members of the Pulaski County Quorum Court, is of an illegal
exaction.  We will refer to the appellees collectively as "Pulaski
County."  The illegal exaction claim, brought under Ark. Const.
art. 16,  13, is that the County misapplied sales and use tax
proceeds and other funds in the construction of the Pulaski County
Regional Detention Facility.  This is an appeal of one aspect of
the Chancellor's order certifying a class for an action to be
brought in accordance with Ark. R. Civ. P. 23.  It is an
interlocutory appeal.  See Ark. R. App. P. 2(a)(9).    
     Mr. Hamilton's complaint seeks no refund to the taxpayers but
requests primarily injunctive relief requiring the transfer of
funds within the County coffers to keep the money from being
misapplied.  The Chancellor granted the class certification and
required individual notices to the taxpayers in accordance with
Ark. R. Civ. P. 23(c) because "monetary relief" was being sought in
the form of attorney's fees.  The appeal is from the notice
requirement imposed by the Chancellor's order.  We agree that the
notice requirement was improper, so we reverse and remand the case.
     In City of Little Rock v. Cash, 277 Ark. 494,