Title: Stacks v. Jones

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

John STACKS v. Randy JONES and Rita Jones

95-211                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered March 11, 1996


1.   Appeal & error -- damages argument not preserved below --
     argument not reached on appeal. -- Appellant's argument that
     there was no substantial evidence to support the jury's award
     of damages and that the damages were excessive as a matter of
     law and fact, was not preserved below; appellant attempted to
     cite to a case that had never been mentioned at trial and
     failed to object at trial to the evidence the appellees
     presented on the future-loss issue, nor did he make any effort
     to tender a jury instruction on the issue.

2.   Motions -- appellant's directed verdict motion failed to
     specify excessive damages as ground -- motion for directed
     verdict must state movant's specific grounds. -- Appellant's
     claim that he duly preserved the excessive-damages issue when
     he moved for a directed verdict at the end of the appellees'
     case and after all the evidence had been submitted was
     rejected by the court where his directed verdict motion failed
     to specify excessive damages as a ground; under Ark. R. Civ.
     P. 50(a), a motion for directed verdict must state the
     movant's specific grounds in order to assure the specific
     ground for a directed verdict is brought to the trial court's
     attention.  

3.   Civil procedure -- plain error rule rejected by court. -- The
     supreme court has consistently refused to accept or adopt a
     plain error rule, and refused to do so here.

4.   Appeal & error -- any error argued on appeal must first have
     been raised below -- appellant's failure to do so prevented
     supreme court from considering his argument. -- Under Ark. R.
     Civ. P. Rule 59(f), if a party has already properly preserved
     his or her error concerning any of the grounds listed in Rule
     59(a), that party is not required to make a motion for new
     trial in order to argue those grounds on appeal; nonetheless,
     because there is no provision in the rules for plain error,
     any error argued on appeal must have first been directed to
     the trial court's attention in some appropriate manner so that
     court had an opportunity to address the issue; the supreme
     court continues to adhere to the well-settled rule that issues
     not raised in the trial court will not be considered for the
     first time on appeal. 

5.   Trial -- refusal to give jury instruction proper --
     instruction inappropriate. -- Appellant's contention that the
     trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction regarding
     the appellees' duty to mitigate damages to real and personal
     property was without merit where the instruction in question
     is to be given only when there is evidence that a party
     claiming property damage has failed to mitigate damages; AMI
     2229 deals with physical damages to real or personal property;
     here, the appellees were seeking lost profits, not physical
     damages to property; accordingly, the trial court was correct
     in refusing appellant's proffer of AMI 2229.


     Appeal from Van Buren Circuit Court; David Reynolds, Judge;
affirmed.
     Timothy O. Dudley, for appellant.
     Donna J. Wolfe, for appellees.

     Tom Glaze, Justice.
*ADVREP4*






JOHN STACKS,
                    APPELLANT,

V.

RANDY JONES AND RITA JONES,
                    APPELLEES.



95-211

Opinion Delivered:  3-11-96

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF VAN BUREN COUNTY, ARKANSAS,
NO. CV 93-20; HONORABLE DAVID
REYNOLDS, CIRCUIT JUDGE  


AFFIRMED




                  TOM GLAZE, Associate Justice

     On July 20, 1990, the appellees, Randy and Rita Jones, leased
a feed mill business from Mountaire Feeds, Inc. for five years. 
The lease contained an option to renew for an additional five years
at the end of the primary term.  During the primary term, appellant
John Stacks entered into negotiations to purchase the mill from
Mountaire, and those negotiations culminated in a sale on August
14, 1992.  At that time, Mountaire assigned the Joneses' lease to
Stacks.  Significantly, a wind storm had damaged the fertilizer and
seed storage bins on the leased property only four days prior to
Stacks's purchase of the property.  By letter dated October 30,
1992, Stacks told the Joneses he would not repair the storm damage
and he was terminating that portion of the lease involving the
fertilizer business.  Stacks further notified the Joneses that they
were in noncompliance with certain lease provisions.  Stacks, about
six weeks later, demanded the Joneses vacate the property.
     On March 11, 1993, the Joneses brought this lawsuit, alleging
Stacks had breached their lease agreement, and seeking damages
arising from that breach.  On September 29, 1994, this matter was
tried to a jury which returned a judgment in favor of the Joneses
in the sum of $137,797.00.  The trial court entered its judgment on
October 12, 1994, and Stacks's new counsel entered his appearance
and filed a timely motion for new trial on October 24, 1994.  That
motion alleged juror misconduct.  The record reflects no ruling on
Stacks's motion, but it shows he filed a timely appeal on
December 9, 1994.
     In his appeal, Stacks first argues there is no substantial
evidence to support the jury's award of damages.  He claims damages
are excessive as a matter of law and fact.  However, Stacks simply
failed to preserve his arguments below.  For example, he now cites
the case of Burnette v. Morgan, 303 Ark. 150,