Court Opinion

ID: 9666310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:10:51.489562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:26.495256
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting. This case was not about the rule against perpetuities. It was about the conduct of one of the partners and whether he could bind the other partners by his actions. As a “throw away” argument, the appellant said the agreement violated the rule against perpetuities. Both parties treated this argument perfunctorily in their briefs. However, the majority found the technical legal argument appealing and went off down a false path, ignoring what this case was really about. The trial court quickly saw through this legal smoke screen and held that the appellants were estopped to void this document, as they should be, having accepted the benefits from it. The majority did not deal with the estoppel question in its first opinion and does so only indirectly on rehearing. We cannot reverse this trial court’s finding regarding estoppel unless we find it was clearly wrong, because it entailed factual findings. See 31 C.J.S. Estoppel § 163 (1964); Ray Dodge, Inc. v. Moore, 251 Ark. 1036, 479 S.W.2d 518 (1912); Jones v. Burks, 110 Ark. 108, 161 S.W. 177 (1913); Lary v. Young, 13 Ark. 401 (1853); see also A.R.C.P. Rule 52(a). The case of Chase v. Cartwright, 53 Ark. 358, 14 S.W. 90 (1890), cited in the majority opinion on rehearing, is not on point or controlling. This case was incorrectly decided and I would grant the rehearing.