{
  "id": 377538,
  "name": "William Phillip COTTRELL v. Myrldehne COTTRELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cottrell v. Cottrell",
  "decision_date": "1998-03-19",
  "docket_number": "97-654",
  "first_page": "352",
  "last_page": "356",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "332 Ark. 352"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "965 S.W.2d 129"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "263 Ark. 774",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1672719
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/263/0774-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 Ark. 203",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1751554
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/276/0203-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 Ark. 569",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1910527
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/315/0569-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "330 Ark. 38",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        298634
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/330/0038-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "330 Ark. 287",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        298613
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/330/0287-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "330 Ark. 687",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        298587
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/330/0687-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 Ark. 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1871455
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/292/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 Ark. 239",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1895759
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/294/0239-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 Ark. 433",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1750166
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/277/0433-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 Ark. 239",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1900938
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/306/0239-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "873 S.W.2d 155",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 Ark. 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907746
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/316/0540-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "323 Ark. 757",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1445719
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/323/0757-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 Ark. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1935156
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/312/0460-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 Ark. 168",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        12021341
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/326/0168-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 Ark. 310",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        50368
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/328/0310-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "330 Ark. 58",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        298563
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/330/0058-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "330 Ark. 206",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        298630
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/330/0206-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 443,
    "char_count": 6756,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.717,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5587082362266287e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6765415667091016
    },
    "sha256": "189657a9df03149194b48f249a3bf8d67ecf0588062fe9155e78bde8cf8e00fc",
    "simhash": "1:b7ebccc5323ed7ba",
    "word_count": 1105
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:26:57.770497+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William Phillip COTTRELL v. Myrldehne COTTRELL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Annabelle Clinton Imber, Judge.\nThe appellants, William and Deborah Cottrell, sued the appellees, Myrldehne Cottrell and the Cottrell Corporation, for fraud and breach of an oral employment contract. The trial court granted summary judgment to the appellees. We affirm.\nRalph and Myrldehne Cottrell owned and operated the Cottrell Corporation located in Springdale, Arkansas. In 1992, Ralph was diagnosed with terminal cancer. At the time, Ralph\u2019s son, William Cottrell, and William\u2019s wife, Deborah, were living in Terre Haute, Indiana. In October of 1992, Ralph and Myrldehne asked William and Deborah to move to Arkansas so that William could visit regularly with his father and help run the Cottrell Corporation. Myrldehne also told William that she suspected someone was stealing from the Cottrell Corporation, and that she was afraid of being placed in a nursing home after Ralph died. To entice William and Deborah to move to Arkansas, Ralph and Myrldehne orally promised the couple free housing and jobs with the Cottrell Corporation for a combined salary of $400 a week.\nIn refiance on these promises, William and Deborah quit their jobs, sold their home, and moved to Arkansas in late January of 1993. Ralph Cottrell died on February 28, 1993, leaving all of his property, including the Cottrell Corporation, to his wife, Myrldehne. The day after Ralph Cottrell\u2019s funeral, Myrldehne terminated William\u2019s and Deborah\u2019s employment, and a few days later, she evicted the couple from their home.\nOn January 18, 1994, William and Deborah filed a legal action for fraud against Myrldehne and the Cottrell Corporation. Myrldehne and the Cottrell Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment contending that there was no evidence of fraud, and that the termination did not constitute a breach of contract. On March 26, 1997, the trial court found that the parties had entered into an oral employment contract without a specific duration. Thus, pursuant to the employment-at-will doctrine, Myrldehne and the Cottrell Corporation were free to terminate William and Deborah at any time and without cause. The court also granted summary judgment on the fraud claim because there was no evidence of any misrepresentation by Myrldehne or the Cottrell Corporation.\nOn appeal, William and Deborah claim that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment on their claim for breach of contract, but they do not contest the trial court\u2019s ruling on their fraud claim. As we have said on numerous occasions, summary judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. In making this determination, we review the proof submitted in the light most favorable to the party resisting the motion, and resolve all doubts and inferences against the moving party. Lovell v. Brock, 330 Ark. 206, 952 S.W.2d 161 (1997); Sublett v. Hipps, 330 Ark. 58, 952 S.W.2d 140 (1997). Summary judgment is also appropriate when, as in this case, the trial court finds that the allegations, taken as true, fail to state a cause of action. See, e.g., O\u2019Mara v. Dykema, 328 Ark. 310, 942 S.W.2d 854 (1997); Hollomon v. Keadle, 326 Ark. 168, 931 S.W.2d 413 (1996); Rainey v. Keadle, 312 Ark. 460, 850 S.W.2d 839 (1993).\nI. The Employment-At-Will Doctrine\nFor their first challenge to the order of summary judgment, William and Deborah contend that the court erred when it found that their employment agreement was governed by the employment-at-will doctrine. It is well established under Arkansas law that when an employment contract is silent as to its duration, either party may terminate the relationship at will and without cause. Marine Servs. Unlimited, Inc. v. Rake, 323 Ark. 757, 918 S.W.2d 132 (1994); City of Green Forest v. Morse, 316 Ark. 540, 873 S.W.2d 155 (1994); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Baysinger, 306 Ark. 239, 812 S.W.2d 463 (1991). In Griffin v. Erickson, 277 Ark. 433, 642 S.W.2d 308 (1982), we distinguished that a \u2018\u201ccontract at will\u2019 . . . may be terminated by either party, whereas a contract for a definite term may not be terminated before the end of the term, except for cause or by mutual agreement, unless the right to do so is reserved in the contract.\u201d Although we have recognized several exceptions to the at-will doctrine, none are applicable to the facts at hand. See Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 743 S.W.2d 380 (1988); Gladden v. Arkansas Children\u2019s Hosp., 292 Ark. 130, 728 S.W.2d 501 (1987).\nIn this case, it is undisputed that the parties did not reach an agreement as to the duration of their employment. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court correcdy ruled that, pursuant to the employment-at-will doctrine, Myrldehne and the Cottrell Corporation were free to terminate William and Deborah at any time and without cause.\nIn reply, William and Deborah ask us to read a reasonable duration into the employment agreement pursuant to Section 204 of the Restatement of Contracts, which provides that:\nWhen the parties to a bargain sufficiently defined to be a contract have not agreed with respect to a term which is essential to a determination of their rights and duties, a term which is reasonable in the circumstances is supplied by the court.\nRestatement (Second) of Contracts \u00a7 204 (1981). We refuse to adopt this Restatement provision in employment cases as it would completely abrogate the employment-at-will doctrine, which, as explained above, is firmly rooted in Arkansas jurisprudence.\nII. Good Faith and Fair Dealing\nNext, William and Deborah contend that Myrldehne\u2019s actions constituted a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. William and Deborah did not make this argument before the trial court, and thus they are precluded from raising it for the first time on appeal. Wilson v. Rebsamen Ins., Inc., 330 Ark. 687, 957 S.W.2d 678 (1997); Slaton v. Slaton, 330 Ark. 287, 956 S.W.2d 150 (1997); McGhee v. State, 330 Ark. 38, 954 S.W.2d 206 (1997).\nIII. Motion for Costs\nMyrldehne and the Cottrell Corporation have prepared a supplemental abstract and request $625 in fees and expenses. We agree that William and Deborah\u2019s abstract was flagrantly deficient, and that the supplemental abstract was appropriate pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(2). See also Miller v. Nix, 315 Ark. 569, 868 S.W.2d 498 (1994); Rhodes v. State, 276 Ark. 203, 634 S.W.2d 107 (1982); Roach v. Terry, 263 Ark. 774, 567 S.W.2d 286 (1978). Accordingly, we award Myrldehne and the Cottrell Corporation $500 in fees and expenses.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Annabelle Clinton Imber, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jon R. Sanford, for appellants.",
      "Susan A. Fox, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Phillip COTTRELL v. Myrldehne COTTRELL\n97-654\n965 S.W.2d 129\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 19, 1998\nJon R. Sanford, for appellants.\nSusan A. Fox, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0352-01",
  "first_page_order": 378,
  "last_page_order": 382
}