Opinion ID: 2428959
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Election of RemediesDirect Appeal

Text: Smith argues the trial court erred in forcing him to elect between causes of action under the Federal Odometer Fraud Act and under Arkansas common law for fraud. He claims that a plaintiff should not be forced to elect between causes of action, only between inconsistent remedies. WBF ignores the distinction between causes of action and remedies and argues simply that a plaintiff should not be allowed to make a recovery of both disaffirmance remedies and affirmance remedies. We observe that at least one court has held the Federal Odometer Fraud Act does not preempt state causes of action for common law fraud based upon odometer tampering or misrepre-sentation. Verdonck v. Scopes, 226 Ill.App.3d 484, 168 Ill.Dec. 908, 590 N.E.2d 545 (1992). The Act specifically provides that it does not preempt causes of action asserted under state odometer fraud statutes. 15 U.S.C. § 1991. The doctrine of election of remedies applies to remedies, not to causes of action. Westark Specialties, Inc. v. Stouffer Family Ltd. Partnership, 310 Ark. 225, 836 S.W.2d 354 (1992). Contract and tort theories have been determined to be consistent when both seek the same relief and the evidence to support recovery on one theory partially supports it on another. Jim Halsey Co. v. Bonar, 284 Ark. 461, 683 S.W.2d 898 (1985). However, the fact that claims based on both contract and tort theories have been regarded as consistent causes of action, does not mean that recoveries on both theories are allowed. To the contrary, this court has stated that [u]nder no circumstances would we permit, over proper objection, both recoveries. Thomas Auto Co., 297 Ark. at 498, 763 S.W.2d at 654. But for Smith's conduct in returning the truck to WBF, we would conclude the trial court erred in forcing Smith to choose between causes of action. However, Smith already elected his remedy by returning the truck to WBF. Absent the return of the truck to WBF, Smith should have been allowed to pursue both causes of action and present evidence of both. Then, he could have either chosen to have the jury instructed on only one remedy or he could have had the jury instructed on both remedies, with an additional instruction telling the jury to choose only one. See Thomas Auto Co., 297 Ark. at 499, 763 S.W.2d 651; Howard W. Brill, Arkansas Law of Damages § 2-6, at 24 (2d ed. 1990). Because Smith elected his remedy when he returned his truck to WBF and WBF accepted it, the jury's award of restitution was proper. Any error committed by forcing Smith to elect between causes of action is therefore harmless.