{ "id": 1889920, "name": "Jackie Mitchell BATTLE and George Mitchell v. James A. (Al) HARRIS, Sheriff of Clark County", "name_abbreviation": "Battle v. Harris", "decision_date": "1989-03-13", "docket_number": "88-231", "first_page": "241", "last_page": "245", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "298 Ark. 241" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "766 S.W.2d 431" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "286 Ark. 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8723018 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/286/0501-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 21", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "269 Ark. 919", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1712530 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/269/0919-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 S.W.2d 583", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "year": 1936, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 Ark. 347", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1411178 ], "year": 1936, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/193/0347-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 S.W.2d 400", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "year": 1932, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 Ark. 782", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1435136 ], "year": 1932, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/185/0782-01" ] }, { "cite": "274 Ark. 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1755050 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/274/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "285 Ark. 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1877657 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/285/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "271 Ark. 783", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1756109 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/271/0783-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 21-9-301", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 16-66-301", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 445, "char_count": 7097, "ocr_confidence": 0.884, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.042590199513611e-07, "percentile": 0.95483925896838 }, "sha256": "6edba5b52ff1f965fbd10997737c9017fadd0c75071cb8d8a03af2a5be6c9ce3", "simhash": "1:33a7b449e8bc97b3", "word_count": 1168 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:53.094543+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Jackie Mitchell BATTLE and George Mitchell v. James A. (Al) HARRIS, Sheriff of Clark County" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nThis controversy centers on a writ of execution which was issued on the basis of a chancery court judgment for child support arrearages. Judy Battle obtained the judgment against her former husband, Willie Joe Battle, who is presently married to appellant Jackie Battle. Appellee\u2019s office served the writ on Jackie Battle, and subsequently seized 140 personalty items to which Jackie, along with her father, George Mitchell, claimed ownership. Jackie claims that, after the items were seized, she gathered information to prove that she, not Willie Joe, owned the seized items, but before she could garner the information and petition to stay the execution, appellee sold all the items. The appellee sold the items twenty-nine days after they had been seized.\nJackie and her father filed suit in circuit court against appellee, alleging the denial of their rights of due process and seeking compensatory and exemplary damages for appellee\u2019s wrongful, malicious and illegal taking and sale of their personal-ties. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to ARCP Rule 12(b)(6). First, appellee argued that the appellants\u2019 exclusive remedy to suspend or set aside the writ of execution was provided under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 16-66-301 to -304 and 16-66-401 to -409 (1987), and that appellants had failed to avail themselves of that remedy. Second, he claimed that, as a public official, he was immune from liability for damages pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 21-9-301 (1987). In finding merit in appellee\u2019s argument, the trial court concluded the appellants\u2019 due process rights had not been violated and granted appellee\u2019s motion to dismiss the appellants\u2019 action. We reverse.\nWe first note that Rule 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state facts upon which relief can be granted. Harvey v. Eastman Kodak Co., 271 Ark. 783, 610 S.W.2d 582 (1981). In Guthrie v. Tyson Foods, 285 Ark. 95, 685 S.W.2d 164 (1985), we further noted that it is improper for the trial court to look beyond the complaint to decide a motion to dismiss pursuant to ARCP Rule 12(b)(6), unless it was treating the motion as one for summary judgment, and even if the court treated the motion as one for summary judgment, it is incorrect to base the decision on allegations in briefs and attached exhibits. Here, the trial court made no mention of treating the appellee\u2019s Rule 12(b)(6) motion as one for summary judgment. Therefore, in considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings for failure to state facts upon which relief can be granted under ARCP 12(b)(6), the facts alleged in the complaint are treated as true and viewed in the light most favorable to the party seeking relief. McAllister v. Forrest City St. Imp. Dist., 274 Ark. 372, 626 S.W.2d 194 (1981).\nWe next look to the appellants\u2019 complaint, which, among other things, alleges that Jackie Battle and her father were the owners of the 140 items of personal property that were unlawfully seized by the appellee from the appellants\u2019 house. Appellants claimed that a deputy of appellee\u2019s demanded and received the appellants\u2019 keys to their house after the deputy threatened to \u201ckick the door down.\u201d Appellants further alleged that their home was stripped of all furniture and that the appellee refused to return the items after the appellants explained that the property solely belonged to the appellants. Appellants asserted they received no notice from the appellee before or at the time the appellee sold the 140 items of personal property at an auction twenty-nine days after the property was seized. Appellants further alleged the appellee and his agents had been specifically told that the seized items did not belong to the judgment debtor, Willie Joe Battle, and that, despite all protestations, objections and warnings, appellee deliberately and willfully seized and sold the appellants\u2019 properties without just cause and in violation of their due process rights.\nIn view of the foregoing factual allegations, appellants\u2019 complaint, at the very least, sets forth a cause of action based upon their claim that their due process rights had been violated. Although appellee\u2019s counsel in oral argument indicated the appellants had received proper notice and had been afforded due process regarding the sale of the seized items, we find nothing in the record to substantiate that view.\nAppellee answers the cause of action set out in appellants\u2019 complaint by arguing the appellants were required to pursue only the remedy provided in \u00a7\u00a7 16-66-301 to -304 and 16-66-401 to -409, which permits a person to stay, quash or set aside an execution, levy or sale. We agree that this statutory procedure or method of staying or vacating writs of execution on judgments appears to be exclusive. See Taylor v. O\u2019Kane, 185 Ark. 782, 49 S.W.2d 400 (1932). However, this procedure does not preclude a person from seeking recovery for damages when, pursuant to a writ of execution, a sheriff intentionally or willfully takes property from persons who are in no way connected with the suit and judgment from which the execution ensued. See Wright v. Husband, 193 Ark. 347, 99 S.W.2d 583 (1936); Williams v. Brooks, 269 Ark. 919, 601 S.W.2d 592 (Ark. App. 1980).\nAppellee also argues that the appellants\u2019 action at best states a claim that appellee was negligent in the performance of his duties and that the trial court properly dismissed such a claim because the appellee is immune from tort liability under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 21 -9-301. Of course, our earlier consideration of the appellants\u2019 complaint in view of ARCP Rule 12(b)(6) disposes of appellee\u2019s premise that the appellants\u2019 claim is based only upon negligence. Aside from what the proof might eventually show, we must, in this appeal, view the facts alleged in the appellants\u2019 complaint as true and in the light most favorable to the appellants. In doing so, the appellants assert the sheriff or his agents intentionally violated the appellants\u2019 due process rights by seizing properties that the appellee knew belonged to Jackie Battle and George Mitchell, not Willie Joe Battle, and by selling the properties without ^notice and in violation of the appellants\u2019 due process rights. In sum, although we have held that the public officials named under \u00a7 21-9-301 are immune from tort liability, viz., negligent acts committed in the performance of their official duties, Autry v. Lawrence, 286 Ark. 501, 696 S.W.2d 315 (1985), we have never interpreted that immunity to include intentional torts committed by those officials. We reject any suggestion to do so now.\nBecause the appellants\u2019 complaint states a cause of action for intentional or willful tort, we reverse and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Christopher C. Mercer, Jr., for appellant.", "Hilburn, Calhoon, Harper, Pruniski & Calhoun, Ltd., by: David M. Fuqua and James D. Lawson, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Jackie Mitchell BATTLE and George Mitchell v. James A. (Al) HARRIS, Sheriff of Clark County\n88-231\n766 S.W.2d 431\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 13, 1989\nChristopher C. Mercer, Jr., for appellant.\nHilburn, Calhoon, Harper, Pruniski & Calhoun, Ltd., by: David M. Fuqua and James D. Lawson, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0241-01", "first_page_order": 269, "last_page_order": 273 }