Marcum v. Wengert, 344 Ark. 153

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed a landlord-tenant dispute involving conversion of furniture, breach of lease, security deposits, corporate authority, and attorney's fees. The court held that the housing corporation, Marcum, and Capo were prevailing parties on their respective claims or defenses, reversed and remanded for consideration or award of attorney's fees and costs, and affirmed the ruling that Marcum had authority to pursue the corporation's claim.

Holdings

1. The trial court erred by determining that no party prevailed based on the disparity between the damages sought and the damages recovered. The prevailing party is determined by who comes out on top on the claims and obtains the judgment in its favor; PKT Housing Corporation prevailed on its conversion and breach-of-lease claims, and Marcum and Capo prevailed on the claims asserted against them individually.
2. Because PKT Housing Corporation, Marcum, and Capo were prevailing parties on contract-related claims, the trial court was required on remand to exercise its discretion whether to award reasonable attorney's fees under section 16-22-308 and costs under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d).
3. The lease provision required the trial court to award PKT Housing Corporation reasonable attorney's fees and costs as the prevailing party in an action arising from enforcement of the lease or possession of the premises. Marcum and Capo were not parties to the lease and were not entitled to fees under that contractual provision.
4. The trial court properly denied the Wengerts' motion for judgment as a matter of law because the evidence supported the conclusion that Marcum was authorized by PKT Housing Corporation to initiate and continue the lawsuit.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court erred by finding that no party was a prevailing party because neither side recovered the full amount sought.
2. Whether attorney's fees and costs could be awarded under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-22-308 and the lease's attorney-fee provision.
3. Whether Marcum had authority to prosecute PKT Housing Corporation's claim after he ceased serving on its board and disassociated from the fraternity.
4. Whether the Wengerts could challenge Marcum's authority to represent PKT Housing Corporation under Arkansas law.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded