{
  "id": 6140843,
  "name": "Eric HOLLOWAY v. RILEY'S OAK HILL MANOR, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Holloway v. Riley's Oak Hill Manor, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "2003-12-17",
  "docket_number": "CA 03-294",
  "first_page": "301",
  "last_page": "302",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ark. App. 301"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "139 S.W.3d 144"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "352 Ark. 144",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1159722
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2003,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/352/0144-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "341 Ark. 735",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1257715
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/341/0735-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 206,
    "char_count": 2802,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.752,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1749327856566155
    },
    "sha256": "7750a21a22f39741ef82546b67754511269d39e7e0b396eca08a5cdb7ee93827",
    "simhash": "1:078fc020586cfdec",
    "word_count": 450
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:08.452411+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Robbins and Crabtree, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Eric HOLLOWAY v. RILEY\u2019S OAK HILL MANOR, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Larry D. Vaught, Judge.\nAppellant appeals from the circuit court\u2019s order determining the amount of attorney\u2019s fees, costs, and interest due on a breach of contract judgment, which was previously appealed to this court in Holloway v. Riley\u2019s Oak Hill Manor, CA02-74 (Oct. 9, 2002), and affirmed. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in modifying the original judgment. We affirm.\nIn the first appeal, we affirmed the trial court\u2019s award of a judgment in favor of appellee Riley\u2019s Oak Hill Manor based on a breach of contract claim filed against appellant Eric Holloway. The judgment involved in the first appeal was against appellant in the amount of $6,664.20, plus costs, attorneys\u2019 fees, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest. On December 3, 2002, the trial court entered a \u201cmodified final judgment,\u201d which provided that appellants shall pay $6,664.20 in compensatory damages, $350 in costs, $7,672 in attorney\u2019s fees, $2,333.42 in pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate of ten percent on the amounts previously set forth or $4.6698 per day from June 26, 2001, until paid. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the modified final judgment.\nAppellant does not challenge the amounts established for the fees, costs and interest, but argues that the trial court erred in modifying the original judgment. It seems clear that the trial court did not modify the original judgment, but merely determined the dollar amount of costs, fees, and interest. Matters that are collateral to the trial court\u2019s judgment are left within the trial court\u2019s jurisdiction even though an appeal has been docketed. Harold Ives Trucking, Co, v. Pro Transp., Inc., 341 Ark. 735, 19 S.W.3d 600 (2000). An award of attorney\u2019s fees and the accrual of interest on a judgment are collateral matters. See id.; U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Milburn, 352 Ark. 144, 100 S.W.3d 674 (2003). Similarly, an award of costs is also a collateral matter. The original order, which concluded the rights of the parties to the subject matter at issue, was appealed and this court affirmed. The only issues that remained were the amount of the costs, fees, and interest to be awarded to appellees. Although the order appealed from is styled \u201cmodified final judgment,\u201d it merely determined the amount of the costs, fees, and interest that appellant was to pay. Thus, the trial court did not erroneously \u201cmodify\u201d the final judgment as appellant suggests.\nAffirmed.\nRobbins and Crabtree, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Larry D. Vaught, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William M. Howard, Jr., for appellant.",
      "Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C., by: L. Kyle Hejfley and Derrick W. Smith, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Eric HOLLOWAY v. RILEY\u2019S OAK HILL MANOR, INC.\nCA 03-294\n139 S.W.3d 144\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division IV\nOpinion delivered December 17, 2003\nWilliam M. Howard, Jr., for appellant.\nMitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C., by: L. Kyle Hejfley and Derrick W. Smith, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0301-01",
  "first_page_order": 325,
  "last_page_order": 326
}