Opinion ID: 1615348
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Intent to interfere with business expectancy

Text: For its second point on appeal, Guaranty argues that there was no substantial evidence that Guaranty and STAR intended to interfere with Abstract's business expectancy. Specifically, Guaranty contends that Guaranty and STAR did not undertake their programs intending to harm Abstract's business. Guaranty maintains that these programs were directed toward real estate companies, namely Rainey Realty, Rector Phillips Morse, and Real Estate Central, that had done little business with Abstract. Abstract responds, arguing that Guaranty had the intent to interfere with Abstract's business expectancy. Specifically, Abstract contends that Guaranty and STAR commenced an aggressive program to make realtors and home builders title agents through formation of Affiliated Business Arrangements [ABAs] in an effort to control the direction of underwriting in Pulaski County. We have said that intentional torts involve consequences which the actor believes are substantially certain to follow his actions. Miller v. Ensco, Inc., 286 Ark. 458, 460, 692 S.W.2d 615, 617 (1985). The tort of interference with contractual relations is similar to other intentional torts `in the sense that the defendant must have either desired to bring about the harm to the plaintiff or have known that this result was substantially certain to be produced by his conduct.' City National Bank of Fort Smith v. Unique Structures, 929 F.2d 1308 (1991) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977)). Further, tortious interference with business expectancy has remained very largely a matter of at least intent to interfere . . . and the means by which [the defendant] has sought to accomplish it. W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts § 130, at 1008-09 (5th ed.1984). We now address whether Guaranty and STAR had the intent to interfere with Abstract's business expectancy. Here, the following notes from STAR's board minutes, dated October 18, 2000, were admitted into evidence: The Board was updated on local strategies, i.e. ABAs. STAR currently has one TitleMax agent in placea 2nd one being established and 2-3 more in the works. STAR currently has a marketing agreement in place with the largest real estate company in Central Arkansas and is working with another company to secure a 2nd marketing agreement. Sam suggested that STAR focus much of its advertising dollar on marketing agreements with local companies. All agreed that the key to successful ABA's is having the key people in the proper positions. These minutes illustrate that Guaranty had knowledge that the TitleMax programs and the marketing agreements were in place. Mike Harris testified that in 1999, he began to develop methods to generate activity for his title company through associations with various realtors. Mr. Harris stated, I don't know that there was ever an official stamp of approval, but he admitted that Guaranty had knowledge of it. Additionally, Mike Sage testified that Guaranty had knowledge of the closing coordinators, the use of the TitleMax programs, the transactions with Val Hansen and Jeff Fuller, and the marketing agreements. Pivotal testimony came from Mike MacKinder, the principal broker at Rainey Realty. The following colloquy took place: Q: Regardless of the predominance of American Abstract's involvement of closings with Rainey agent, you knew that there was a, a routine involvement regardless of the amount, you knew that there was a routine involvement. A: Sure, Rainey's had a relationship with American Abstract for a long time. Q: For maybe up to thirty (30) years. A: Possibly, yeah.    Q: When, would you acknowledge that the negotiations which took place later involving the Title Max negotiations and the negotiations for the Marketing Agreement, both of them were known to have a potential for significant impact on where closings occurred from Rainey? A: Sure. Q: All right. And so, if each one of them carried the potentiality [sic] of having a significant impact on closings on the practices, the historical and traditional practices which have occurred, then it would have been known to all participants, would it not, that if there was an increase in Stewart closings on account of the programs being considered, there would by definition be an equal reduction in the amount of other places. A: Yeah, probably. Q: And that would include American Abstract. A: Yes, that's why we gave Mr. Adkins [of American Abstract] first chance.    Q: Did you, did you discuss the changes in the marketplace that would occur on account of the agreements that you were negotiating? A: No, we didn't. Q: You never discussed it? A: I don't think so. I don't remember discussing anything. Q: Was it accepted that there would be such a change? A: I think it was understood. This testimony, particularly the testimony of Mr. MacKinder, satisfies the second element of the tort because it illustrates (1) that Guaranty had knowledge of Abstract's business expectancy, and (2) that Guaranty had the requisite intent to interfere with that business expectancy through the use of its TitleMax programs, rental agreements, and closing coordinators. Based upon this testimony, we conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that Guaranty knew that its actions would cause harmful consequences to Abstract's business.