{
  "id": 236207,
  "name": "Shirley A. CHLANDA and Thomas D. Ledbetter v. Lewis KILLEBREW",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chlanda v. Killebrew",
  "decision_date": "1997-06-09",
  "docket_number": "96-1382",
  "first_page": "39",
  "last_page": "42",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "329 Ark. 39"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "945 S.W.2d 940"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "320 Ark. 449",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1451153
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/320/0449-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 Ark. 256",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1935139
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/312/0256-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 Ark. 791",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        12024852
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1996,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "794"
        },
        {
          "page": "228"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/326/0791-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-22-309",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)(l)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 302,
    "char_count": 3895,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.711,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.876392418967439e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5348325327075053
    },
    "sha256": "5461ea6ccee8f97a831b52d2fea297ac9eefc8d70061404a2e5e481f99afc40d",
    "simhash": "1:3b1dd50d63a201b3",
    "word_count": 653
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:12.305718+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Glaze, J., concurs."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Shirley A. CHLANDA and Thomas D. Ledbetter v. Lewis KILLEBREW"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ray Thornton, Justice.\nThis is an appeal from the trial court\u2019s order awarding attorneys\u2019 fees pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-22-309 (Repl. 1994) and Ark. R. Civ. P. 11. Appellant Shirley Chlanda and her attorney, appellant Thomas D. Ledbetter, were ordered to pay the amounts of $ 5,000.00 and $ 7,663.93 respectively as partial payment of Lewis Killebrew\u2019s attorney\u2019s fees expended by Mr. Killebrew in defending an action for conversion. Both appellants argue on appeal that the trial court erred in finding that they filed a lawsuit that was not well grounded in fact and could not be supported by a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law. Their argument is well taken, and we reverse and remand.\nThe facts of the underlying case are set out in full in Chlanda v. Killebrew, 326 Ark. 791, 934 S.W.2d 227 (1996). Those facts necessary to understand the instant case are as follows. Mr. Killebrew was appointed coadministrator of the estate of Milford Fuller, who was Mrs. Chlanda\u2019s brother-in-law. After Mr. Fuller\u2019s death, Mrs. Chlanda claimed that Mr. Killebrew was holding some jewelry, which had been given to her by her sister, Evelyn Fuller, who had predeceased Mr. Fuller by less than two months. Mr. Killebrew maintained that he did not have the jewelry. The trial court granted summary judgment, and we reversed, holding that there were disputed factual issues to be resolved. It was during the pendency of this appeal that Mr. Killebrew petitioned the trial court for sanctions.\nTo obtain an attorney\u2019s fee pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-22-309(a)(l), the prevailing party must show that there was \u201ca complete absence of a justiciable issue of either law or fact raised by the losing party or his attorney . . . .\u201d Id. To obtain an attorney\u2019s fee pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 11, it must be shown that an attorney or party signed a pleading not grounded in fact, not warranted by existing law, or good-faith argument for a change in the law, or filed for an improper purpose. Ark. R. Civ. P. 11; Cowan v. Schmidle, 312 Ark. 256, 848 S.W.2d 421 (1993).\nWe determined in Chlanda I that disputed factual issues remained unanswered. Chlanda v. Killebrew, 326 Ark. at 794, 934 S.W.2d at 228. Therefore, it cannot be said that appellants were pursuing a claim that was not grounded in fact. Such violations under the statute and the rule are established only when it is patently clear that a claim has no chance of success.\nSee Jones v. Jones, 320 Ark. 449, 898 S.W.2d 23 (1995).\nIt is apparent from the record that the trial court, based its assessment of damages against Mr. Ledbetter in part on the numerous discovery violations that he committed; however, we do not reach the issue of whether sanctions for discovery violations would be appropriate. We note that the federal rule specifically states that Rule 11 \u201cdoes not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and motions that are subject to provisions of Rules 26 through 37.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(d).\nIn summary, because an essential element for sanctions under Rule 11 or Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-22-309 is a determination that appellants were pursuing a claim that was not reasonably based in fact or law, and because that issue was resolved by our decision in Chlanda I, the award of attorney\u2019s fees must be reversed and remanded.\nReversed and remanded.\nGlaze, J., concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ray Thornton, Justice."
      },
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, J.,\nconcurring. I concur but do not join the majority\u2019s analysis concerning the discovery violations or application of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(d).",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Eichenbaum, Scott, Miller, Liles & Heister, P.A., by: Peter B. Heister and Ledbetter & Associates, Ltd., by: Thomas D. Ledbetter, for appellants.",
      "Davis & Goldie, by: James Goldie, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Shirley A. CHLANDA and Thomas D. Ledbetter v. Lewis KILLEBREW\n96-1382\n945 S.W.2d 940\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 9, 1997\nEichenbaum, Scott, Miller, Liles & Heister, P.A., by: Peter B. Heister and Ledbetter & Associates, Ltd., by: Thomas D. Ledbetter, for appellants.\nDavis & Goldie, by: James Goldie, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0039-01",
  "first_page_order": 63,
  "last_page_order": 66
}