Case Name: MORROW CASH HEATING & AIR, INC. v. Jerry JACKSON
Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 2006-09-13
Citations: 96 Ark. App. 105
Docket Number: CA 05-1260
Parties: MORROW CASH HEATING & AIR, INC. v. Jerry JACKSON
Judges: Robbins, Bird, and Glover, JJ., agree.
Reporter: Arkansas Appellate Reports
Volume: 96
Pages: 105–109

Head Matter:
MORROW CASH HEATING & AIR, INC. v. Jerry JACKSON
CA 05-1260
239 S.W.3d 8
Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Opinion delivered September 13, 2006
Hixson Law Firm, by: Kenneth S. Hixson, for appellants.
Davis, Wright, Clark, Butt & Carithers, PLC, by: John G. Trice, for appellee.

Opinion:
John Mauzy Pittman, Chief Judge.
Appellants employed appellee as an accountant. After appellants suffered a severe business reverse, appellee sued appellants alleging that he had not been paid approximately $15,000 for accounting services rendered. Appellants counterclaimed, alleging that they sustained damages in excess of $600,000 as a result of the accounting malpractice of appellee. The trial court directed a verdict on the counterclaim, ruling that it was barred by the three-year statute of limitations because the incorrect advice was initially given in January 2000, just over three years before the claim was filed. The correctness of that ruling is the issue to be decided in this appeal.
Professional malpractice actions are governed by the three-year limitations period set out in Ark. Code. Ann. § 16-56-105 (Repl. 2005). In determining whether a directed verdict should have been granted, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict is sought and give it its highest probative value, taking into account all reasonable inferences deducible from it. Mankey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 314 Ark. 14, 858 S.W.2d 85 (1993); Lytle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 309 Ark. 139, 827 S.W.2d 652 (1992). A motion for a directed verdict should be granted only if there is no substantial evidence to support ajury verdict. Boykin v. Mr. Tidy Car Wash, Inc., 294 Ark. 182, 741 S.W.2d 270 (1987). Where the evidence is such that fair-minded persons might reach different conclusions, then ajury question is presented, and the directed verdict should be reversed. Mankey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., supra.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to appellants, the record shows that, in January 2000, appellee in his capacity as appellants' accountant advised appellants to stop collecting sales tax on equipment installed in new construction. The advice was initially rejected because appellants were not convinced that it was correct; was discussed further at subsequent meetings in February and March; and, after considerable disagreement and reluctance, was ultimately accepted and implemented in March 2000. In February 2003 appellants filed their counterclaim alleging appellee committed malpractice by negligently giving them incorrect tax advice. The question on appeal is whether the trial court was correct in ruling that the malpractice counterclaim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations because the incorrect advice was initially given in January 2000, just over three years before the claim was filed. We hold that it erred because fair-minded persons might conclude, on this record, that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until appellants accepted and implemented the advice in March 2000, just under three years before the counterclaim was filed.
Arkansas adheres to the "occurrence rule" in professional malpractice cases, which provides that a cause of action accrues when the last element essential to the cause of action occurs, unless the professional actively conceals the wrongdoing. Ragar v. Brown, 332 Ark. 214, 964 S.W.2d 372 (1998). Here, there was evidence that appellants did not accept the advice until, after some cajoling that extended into March 2000, during which time appellee repeated the advice and urged them to follow it, appellants relented, accepted the advice, and implemented it. Given the evidence that the advice was rejected when initially given in January 2000, was afterward repeatedly urged, and was not accepted until March 2000, we hold that the trial court erred in directing a verdict on this issue.
Reversed and remanded.
Robbins, Bird, and Glover, JJ., agree.
Neal and Baker, JJ., dissent.