Title: Smith v. Quality Ford, Inc.

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Dorothy J. SMITH v. QUALITY FORD, Inc.

95-1041                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered April 29, 1996


1.   Attorney's fees -- Title VII claim -- prevailing party
     entitled to reasonable fee. -- The prevailing party in a Title
     VII civil rights claim is entitled to a reasonable fee; that
     fee, commonly called the "lodestar" fee, is to be determined
     by the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation
     multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate; where the plaintiff
     has achieved only limited success, the trial court should
     award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation
     to the results obtained.

2.   Attorney's fees -- Title VII claim -- party seeking award of
     fees should submit supporting evidence. -- The party seeking
     an award of fees in a Title VII claim should submit evidence
     supporting the hours worked and the rates claimed.

3.   Appeal & error -- argument raised for first time on appeal not
     considered. -- The supreme court will not contenance an
     argument raised for the first time on appeal.

4.   Civil procedure -- findings by court -- court must make
     special findings of fact upon request -- failure to request
     amounts to waiver. -- Under Ark. R. Civ. P. 52(a), in all
     contested actions tried upon the facts without a jury, the
     court, if requested by a party, shall find the facts specially
     and state separately its conclusions of law, and judgment
     shall be entered pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 58; while Ark. R.
     Civ. P. 52 is similar to the federal rule, Fed. R. Civ. P.
     52(a), the Arkansas rule retains prior state law by which the
     failure of a party to request special findings of fact
     amounted to a waiver of that right; further, Rule 52(b)
     provides that upon motion of a party within ten days after
     entry of judgment, the court may amend its findings and
     judgment accordingly.

5.   Civil procedure -- findings by court -- no request by
     appellant -- right waived. -- Where there was nothing in the
     record to show that appellant requested the trial court to
     make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law either
     prior to or after entry of the judgment, she waived her right
     under Ark. R. Civ. P. 52.


     Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Vann Smith, Chancellor;
affirmed.
     John W. Walker, P.A., by: John W. Walker and Mark Burnette,
for appellant.
     Everett O. Martindale, for appellee.

     Tom Glaze, Justice.April 29, 1996   *ADVREP7*






DOROTHY J. SMITH,
                    APPELLANT,

V.

QUALITY FORD, INC.,
                    APPELLEE.



95-1041

Opinion Delivered:  4-29-96

APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT
OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS,
NO. 91-6929, HONORABLE VANN
SMITH, CHANCELLOR


AFFIRMED





                  TOM GLAZE, Associate Justice

     On June 15, 1987, Quality Ford hired Dorothy Smith as an
officer manager, and this litigation ultimately ensued as a result
of the company's discharge of Smith in October 1991.  During her
more than four years of employment, Smith's responsibilities
included co-signing checks and insuring invoices were paid.  Larry
Duncan, who was hired in 1988, was Smith's immediate supervisor,
and after being on the job for a short period of time, he formed
the suspicion Smith was stealing company funds, but he had no
proof.  Duncan related his suspicions to LeMon Henderson, the
majority stockholder of the company, who told Duncan to get a
replacement for Smith.  Duncan had difficulties in obtaining a
replacement, so Smith continued in her position.
     In 1989, Henderson suspected either Duncan or Smith were
converting company funds, so he hired certified public accountants
to determine if employees were embezzling funds.  Eventually in
1991, one of the accountants discovered that Smith had been
altering Quality Ford checks and converting those checks and funds
to her personal accounts.  In August 1991, Smith, who is black,
filed an EEOC claim, alleging racial discrimination by Duncan, who
is white.  Later in October 1991, Henderson, who is black,
suspended Smith, and informed Smith she had failed to carry out her
duties by not forwarding correspondence from the EEOC to his
attention.  Smith immediately responded by filing another EEOC
claim, alleging retaliatory discharge, and later filed another
complaint alleging gender discrimination.
     On November 13, 1991, Quality Ford filed a civil suit against
Smith, seeking the money she converted, and the next day, Smith was
arrested and charged with the crime of embezzlement.  In December
1991, Smith answered Quality Ford's suit, alleging she and
Henderson had been involved romantically, and during that
relationship, Henderson had authorized Smith's altering checks to
defraud the Internal Revenue Service, and also to divert company
funds to Henderson and Duncan.  She further filed a counterclaim
alleging defamation, malicious criminal and civil prosecution,
false arrest, outrage, wrongful termination, breach of contract,
and her Title VII claims of racial and gender discrimination and
retaliatory discharge.
     On October 8, 1992, Smith was acquitted of the criminal charge
of theft.  However, in the civil suit, the trial court found Smith
had altered and misappropriated twenty Quality Ford checks,
totalling $73,108.67.  The trial court specifically found that
Smith was unbelievable and that she had devised a scheme to defraud
Quality Ford of funds by altering checks entrusted to her care. 
The trial court did hold Smith had prevailed on her Title VII claim
of retaliatory discharge, and awarded her damages in the nominal
amount of $1,000.00 and attorneys fees in the sum of $5,000.00. 
The trial court ordered a set off of these awards against the
$73,108.67 Smith owed Quality Ford.  Furthermore, the trial court
held Henderson had breached Smith's employment contract, and
determined Henderson owed Smith two percent (2%) of the company's
annual net profits for the years 1988 through October 1991.  The
court directed that, after the parties arrived at the amount of the
profits owed Smith, that sum should also be set off against the
$73,108.67 Smith owed Quality Ford.  On March 15, 1995, the trial
court entered judgment in favor of Quality Ford in the amount of
$52,965.00.  Smith brings this appeal from that judgment.
     In her initial point for reversal, Smith agrees that the trial
court correctly awarded her attorney's fees, but argues that it
erred in the assessment of that fee.  Smith cites Hensley v.
Eckerhart,