Court Opinion

ID: 9769625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 14:56:39.376208+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:05.740678
License: Public Domain

George Rose Smith, Justice, dissenting. Of the seven subsections of bur long-arm statute recognizing personal jurisdiction based on conduct, the only one applicable to this case relates to jurisdiction “arising from the person’s... transacting any business in this State.” Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-2502 (C) (1) (a). Even construing that language to the extreme limit allowable under the due process clause, I cannot agree that the appellee transacted any business in Arkansas. In a sale-and-financing transaction which took place in Florida, Copytronics and the appellee executed documents by which Copytronics ostensibly sold a machine to SD Leasing, an Arkansas company, and SD Leasing ostensibly leased the machine to the appellee. The machine and all the negotiations were in Florida. The documents were sent to Arkansas, where SD Leasing approved the transaction by signing the papers. Neither the machine nor the appellee was ever in Arkansas. The appellee made payments by mail to SD Leasing’s office in Arkansas. I do not see how it can fairly be said that the appellee transacted business in Arkansas. The lease itself is a printed form, made especially for SD Leasing. It consists of 23 numbered paragraphs, all of which except three are in fine print. The three paragraphs in capital letters are: (1) a provision for a late charge of lVz% a month or the maximum allowed by law; (2) a disclaimer by SD Leasing of all express or implied warranties: and (3) a statement that the lease is non-cancellable and an acknowledgement that the lessee had read the agreement in its entirety. In every respect the lease is written for the benefit and advantage of the lessor (which appears actually to be a finance company). In the circumstances I do not see how the court can say that a fine-print clause attempting to subject the appellee to Arkansas jurisdiction is “certainly” fair and reasonable. I would affirm the judgment. Dudley, J., joins in this dissent.