Based on the evidence before it, the trial court's findingthat appellee represented sufficient ownership to call the meeting is not clearly erroneous. Appellants point out that the notice was undated and rely on the affidavits of owners Robert Gage and James Roberts who stated that they did not receive the notice within ten days of the meeting. Although appellants again argue that there is no proof to support Mr. Plumlee's assertion, it was for the chancel lor, as the trier of fact, to resolve conflicts in the testimony in favor of one party. 71 Ark. App. We cannot say that the chancellor's finding on this issue is clearly erroneous.
Appellants further argue that there was no quorum at the special meeting.
We are unable to consider these specific arguments because they were notpresented to the trial court. Arguments not raised at trial will not be addressed for the first time on appeal, and parties are bound on appeal by the scope and nature of the objections and arguments they presented below. For the reasons stated the decision of the trial court is affirmed. Bird and Griffen, JJ., agree.