Cite as 2023 Ark. 163

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CV-23-51

ROBERT STEINBUCH

APPELLANT

V.

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS A/K/A 

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS-LITTLE 

ROCK; THE TRUSTEES OF THE 

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS; 

MICHAEL SCHWARTZ, IN HIS 

OFFICIAL AND PERSONAL 

CAPACITY; THERESA BEINER, IN 

HER OFFICIAL AND PERSONAL 

CAPACITY; JOANN MAXEY, IN HER 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JOHN M.A. 

DIPIPPA, IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY; VELMER BURTON, IN 

HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND 

TERRI HOLLINGSWORTH, IN HER 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PULASKI 

COUNTY CLERK

APPELLEES

Opinion Delivered: November 9, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE

PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT 

COURT, SIXTH DIVISION [NO.

60CV-15-5690]

HONORABLE TIMOTHY DAVIS 

FOX, JUDGE

AFFIRMED.

BARBARA W. WEBB, Justice

Appellant Robert Steinbuch appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s order 

denying his motion for order to waive record fees in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

lawsuit against the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). For reversal, Steinbuch 

argues the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk’s fee for preparing the record in Case No. 60CV15-5690 violated Arkansas law. We affirm.

This matter stems from a FOIA action brought by Steinbuch, a law professor at 

UALR, against the University. In 2015, Steinbuch filed a complaint in Case No. 60CV-
2

15-5690 in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, alleging FOIA violations against UALR. In 

2018, the circuit court dismissed the FOIA claim with prejudice because the parties had 

reached a settlement on that claim. Steinbuch later moved to set aside the 2018 order on 

the grounds that the University had violated the negotiated settlement. The circuit court 

denied the motion, and Steinbuch attempted to appeal. That appeal was ultimately dismissed 

in Case No. CV-20-495 following this court’s denial of Steinbuch’s motion to file a belated 

appeal. 

With respect to his appeal of the order denying the motion to set aside, Steinbuch 

filed a motion to waive record fees wherein he alleged Pulaski County Circuit Clerk Terry 

Hollingsworth had sent an $800 invoice for preparation of the record. He argued the fee 

assessed by Hollingsworth violated Arkansas law. The circuit court denied the motion 

without making any findings, and Steinbuch appealed. We did not address the merits of 

Steinbuch’s claims but instead remanded with instructions to join Hollingsworth as an 

indispensable party pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 19, conduct a hearing on 

the record-fees issue, and enter an order containing findings of fact. Steinbuch v. Univ. of 

Ark., 2021 Ark. 99, at 4. 

Steinbuch subsequently filed a second motion in the circuit court to waive record 

fees. Hollingsworth was added as a party and filed an answer and response to the motion. 

The circuit court denied the motion to waive record fees, treating it as a third-party 

complaint. The order was again without findings. Steinbuch filed a timely appeal, which 

this court dismissed. Steinbuch v. Univ. of Ark., 2022 Ark. 74, at 7. We concluded that the 

circuit court’s order was a not a final, appealable order because the circuit court had not yet 

acted on our mandate’s directive to conduct a hearing and enter specific findings. Id.
3

Thereafter, Hollingsworth undertook discovery in the form of interrogatories and 

requests for production to determine the basis for Steinbuch’s allegations. Based on evidence 

produced during discovery, Hollingsworth moved for summary judgment, asserting, in part, 

that the clerk’s office had not prepared any record or transcript for Case No. 60CV-15-

5690. 

The circuit court held a hearing on the motion to waive record fees pursuant to this 

court’s mandate. At the hearing, Steinbuch did not present any testimony or evidence. 

Hollingsworth entered five exhibits into evidence. After taking the matter under 

advisement, the circuit court entered an order containing findings of facts and conclusions 

of law. The circuit court denied the motion to waive record fees, finding that the fee for 

preparing the record was lawful under Arkansas Code Annotated section 21-6-402 (Repl. 

2022). The circuit court also denied Hollingsworth’s motion for summary judgment. 

Steinbuch now appeals. 

We first address Hollingsworth’s contention that no justiciable controversy exists 

between the parties. She contends Steinbuch never requested and never received a copy of 

the record at issue from the circuit clerk’s office. Rather, Steinbuch made arrangements 

with the court reporter for the record. 

Whether a justiciable controversy exists is reviewed de novo on appeal. See Thurston 

v. Safe Surgery Ark., 2021 Ark. 55, at 11, 619 S.W.3d 1, 9. A justiciable controversy is one 

in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. Palade 

v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ark. Sys., 2022 Ark. 119, at 7, 645 S.W.3d 1, 5.
4

In this appeal, Steinbuch complains of an invoice from the circuit clerk for $834.80 

for preparation of the record in connection with his appeal of the motion to set aside.1 The 

record for this appeal, however, reveals (1) that Steinbuch made arrangements with court 

reporter Denise Mack for the record; (2) that Mack prepared the record; (3) that Mack sent 

an invoice of $834.80; and (4) that all payments for the record were made to Mack. 

Steinbuch himself acknowledged that he did not request a copy of the record from the 

circuit clerk. He admitted he requested a copy of the record from the court reporter and 

paid her for it.

Moreover, Mack is not an employee of the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk’s Office. 

Compare Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-501(a) (Repl. 2010 & Supp. 2023) (“The official court 

reporters of the circuit courts in this state are employees of the State of Arkansas.”), with 

Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-1204(a) (Repl. 2013 & Supp. 2023) (listing the circuit clerk as a 

county officer). And Deputy Circuit Clerk Marc Harrison explained in an affidavit that 

Mack is not authorized to sign or accept payment on behalf of the circuit clerk’s office. 

Harrison also stated that any record prepared by Mack would have been done without his 

office’s authorization or knowledge. 

In response, Steinbuch asserts that he did not choose to join Hollingsworth as a party; 

rather, it was this court that ordered her inclusion. This court ordered that Hollingsworth 

be joined as an indispensable party based on Steinbuch’s representations that Hollingsworth 

1

In both his motion to waive record fees and his briefs, Steinbuch also refers to an 

$800 invoice from the circuit clerk for preparation of the record. A review of the 

supplemental record for this appeal indicates he was charged $834.80 for the record in Case 

No. 60CV-15-5690.
5

misapplied the law and miscalculated the fees for preparation of the record. Those 

representations turned out to be false. 

It is apparent from the record that it was the court reporter who charged Steinbuch 

for preparing the record for his appeal in Case No. 60CV-15-5690. Steinbuch does not 

provide any evidence to substantiate his claim that the circuit clerk charged him $834.80 for 

the record. As Steinbuch fails to set forth any convincing argument in support of this claim, 

we decline to further consider the merits of his arguments. Anderson v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 

354, at 2–3.

Because the circuit clerk has no interest in contesting the fees assessed by the court 

reporter, we conclude there is no justiciable controversy in this case. Palade, 2022 Ark. 119, 

at 7, 645 S.W.3d at 5. Although the circuit court ruled on the merits of Steinbuch’s 

arguments, we may still affirm if the lower court reached the right result, albeit for the 

wrong reason. Bayer Cropscience, LP v. Hooks, 2022 Ark. 29, at 7, 638 S.W.3d 274, 279. 

Therefore, we hold that while it did so for the wrong reasons, the circuit court correctly 

denied Steinbuch’s motion to waive record fees. 

Affirmed.

Special Justice OLAN REEVES joins.

WOOD, J., not participating.

Corbitt Law Firm, PLLC, by: Chris P. Corbitt, for appellant.

Adam Fogleman, Veletta Smith, Frank W. Jenner, and Dominique Lane, Pulaski County 

Attorney’s Office, for appellee Terri Hollingsworth.