Court Opinion

ID: 9896096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 16:03:57.525809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:58.996538
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. 163
               SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
                                     No. CV-23-51

                                             Opinion Delivered: November 9, 2023
 ROBERT STEINBUCH
                             APPELLANT
                                             APPEAL FROM THE
                                             PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT
 V.                                          COURT, SIXTH DIVISION [NO.
                                             60CV-15-5690]
 UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS A/K/A
 UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS-LITTLE HONORABLE TIMOTHY DAVIS
 ROCK; THE TRUSTEES OF THE         FOX, JUDGE
 UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS;
 MICHAEL SCHWARTZ, IN HIS
 OFFICIAL AND PERSONAL             AFFIRMED.
 CAPACITY; THERESA BEINER, IN
 HER OFFICIAL AND PERSONAL
 CAPACITY; JOANN MAXEY, IN HER
 OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JOHN M.A.
 DIPIPPA, IN HIS OFFICIAL
 CAPACITY; VELMER BURTON, IN
 HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; AND
 TERRI HOLLINGSWORTH, IN HER
 OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PULASKI
 COUNTY CLERK
                         APPELLEES

                              BARBARA W. WEBB, Justice

      Appellant Robert Steinbuch appeals the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s order

denying his motion for order to waive record fees in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

lawsuit against the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR). For reversal, Steinbuch

argues the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk’s fee for preparing the record in Case No. 60CV-

15-5690 violated Arkansas law. We affirm.

      This matter stems from a FOIA action brought by Steinbuch, a law professor at

UALR, against the University. In 2015, Steinbuch filed a complaint in Case No. 60CV-
15-5690 in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, alleging FOIA violations against UALR. In

2018, the circuit court dismissed the FOIA claim with prejudice because the parties had

reached a settlement on that claim. Steinbuch later moved to set aside the 2018 order on

the grounds that the University had violated the negotiated settlement. The circuit court

denied the motion, and Steinbuch attempted to appeal. That appeal was ultimately dismissed

in Case No. CV-20-495 following this court’s denial of Steinbuch’s motion to file a belated

appeal.

          With respect to his appeal of the order denying the motion to set aside, Steinbuch

filed a motion to waive record fees wherein he alleged Pulaski County Circuit Clerk Terry

Hollingsworth had sent an $800 invoice for preparation of the record. He argued the fee

assessed by Hollingsworth violated Arkansas law. The circuit court denied the motion

without making any findings, and Steinbuch appealed. We did not address the merits of

Steinbuch’s claims but instead remanded with instructions to join Hollingsworth as an

indispensable party pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 19, conduct a hearing on

the record-fees issue, and enter an order containing findings of fact. Steinbuch v. Univ. of

Ark., 2021 Ark. 99, at 4.

          Steinbuch subsequently filed a second motion in the circuit court to waive record

fees. Hollingsworth was added as a party and filed an answer and response to the motion.

The circuit court denied the motion to waive record fees, treating it as a third-party

complaint. The order was again without findings. Steinbuch filed a timely appeal, which

this court dismissed. Steinbuch v. Univ. of Ark., 2022 Ark. 74, at 7. We concluded that the

circuit court’s order was a not a final, appealable order because the circuit court had not yet

acted on our mandate’s directive to conduct a hearing and enter specific findings. Id.
                                               2
        Thereafter, Hollingsworth undertook discovery in the form of interrogatories and

requests for production to determine the basis for Steinbuch’s allegations. Based on evidence

produced during discovery, Hollingsworth moved for summary judgment, asserting, in part,

that the clerk’s office had not prepared any record or transcript for Case No. 60CV-15-

5690.

        The circuit court held a hearing on the motion to waive record fees pursuant to this

court’s mandate. At the hearing, Steinbuch did not present any testimony or evidence.

Hollingsworth entered five exhibits into evidence. After taking the matter under

advisement, the circuit court entered an order containing findings of facts and conclusions

of law. The circuit court denied the motion to waive record fees, finding that the fee for

preparing the record was lawful under Arkansas Code Annotated section 21-6-402 (Repl.

2022). The circuit court also denied Hollingsworth’s motion for summary judgment.

Steinbuch now appeals.

        We first address Hollingsworth’s contention that no justiciable controversy exists

between the parties. She contends Steinbuch never requested and never received a copy of

the record at issue from the circuit clerk’s office. Rather, Steinbuch made arrangements

with the court reporter for the record.

        Whether a justiciable controversy exists is reviewed de novo on appeal. See Thurston

v. Safe Surgery Ark., 2021 Ark. 55, at 11, 619 S.W.3d 1, 9. A justiciable controversy is one

in which a claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. Palade

v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ark. Sys., 2022 Ark. 119, at 7, 645 S.W.3d 1, 5.

                                              3
       In this appeal, Steinbuch complains of an invoice from the circuit clerk for $834.80

for preparation of the record in connection with his appeal of the motion to set aside.1 The

record for this appeal, however, reveals (1) that Steinbuch made arrangements with court

reporter Denise Mack for the record; (2) that Mack prepared the record; (3) that Mack sent

an invoice of $834.80; and (4) that all payments for the record were made to Mack.

Steinbuch himself acknowledged that he did not request a copy of the record from the

circuit clerk. He admitted he requested a copy of the record from the court reporter and

paid her for it.

       Moreover, Mack is not an employee of the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk’s Office.

Compare Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-501(a) (Repl. 2010 & Supp. 2023) (“The official court

reporters of the circuit courts in this state are employees of the State of Arkansas.”), with

Ark. Code Ann. § 14-14-1204(a) (Repl. 2013 & Supp. 2023) (listing the circuit clerk as a

county officer). And Deputy Circuit Clerk Marc Harrison explained in an affidavit that

Mack is not authorized to sign or accept payment on behalf of the circuit clerk’s office.

Harrison also stated that any record prepared by Mack would have been done without his

office’s authorization or knowledge.

       In response, Steinbuch asserts that he did not choose to join Hollingsworth as a party;

rather, it was this court that ordered her inclusion. This court ordered that Hollingsworth

be joined as an indispensable party based on Steinbuch’s representations that Hollingsworth

       1
       In both his motion to waive record fees and his briefs, Steinbuch also refers to an
$800 invoice from the circuit clerk for preparation of the record. A review of the
supplemental record for this appeal indicates he was charged $834.80 for the record in Case
No. 60CV-15-5690.

                                              4
misapplied the law and miscalculated the fees for preparation of the record. Those

representations turned out to be false.

       It is apparent from the record that it was the court reporter who charged Steinbuch

for preparing the record for his appeal in Case No. 60CV-15-5690. Steinbuch does not

provide any evidence to substantiate his claim that the circuit clerk charged him $834.80 for

the record. As Steinbuch fails to set forth any convincing argument in support of this claim,

we decline to further consider the merits of his arguments. Anderson v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark.

354, at 2–3.

       Because the circuit clerk has no interest in contesting the fees assessed by the court

reporter, we conclude there is no justiciable controversy in this case. Palade, 2022 Ark. 119,

at 7, 645 S.W.3d at 5. Although the circuit court ruled on the merits of Steinbuch’s

arguments, we may still affirm if the lower court reached the right result, albeit for the

wrong reason. Bayer Cropscience, LP v. Hooks, 2022 Ark. 29, at 7, 638 S.W.3d 274, 279.

Therefore, we hold that while it did so for the wrong reasons, the circuit court correctly

denied Steinbuch’s motion to waive record fees.

       Affirmed.

       Special Justice OLAN REEVES joins.

       WOOD, J., not participating.

       Corbitt Law Firm, PLLC, by: Chris P. Corbitt, for appellant.

       Adam Fogleman, Veletta Smith, Frank W. Jenner, and Dominique Lane, Pulaski County

Attorney’s Office, for appellee Terri Hollingsworth.

                                              5