HomeCase briefs › Civil Procedure

Wagoner v. Wagoner

Arkansas Court of Appeals · 2024 · Civil Procedure
Civil ProcedurePleadingMotions to DismissAppellate ReviewRule 8(a)Rule 12(b)(6)fact pleadingfailure to state a claim

Facts

Wagoner alleged that after learning in 2021 of a rezoning request involving property he believed belonged to the Wagoner Family Trust, he discovered prior transfers of trust property. He claimed that, after his father's death, he became a cotrustee and that trust property could be transferred only with unanimous agreement of all cotrustees. He alleged misconduct by Patricia, Treece, Williams, and Watkins relating to trust transfers, legal advice, and conflicts of interest, but his complaint asserted no factual allegations against Guinn, Deans, or Campbell. On appeal, Wagoner focused mainly on statute-of-limitations arguments and asserted generally that his complaint stated multiple claims.

Issue

Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing Wagoner's complaint under Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6) when his complaint lacked factual allegations as to some defendants and, on appeal, he failed to develop arguments showing that his pleaded claims were sufficiently stated. Also, whether the court needed to reach the statute-of-limitations issue given those pleading and briefing deficiencies.

Rule

Under Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6), a complaint must state facts, not mere conclusions, showing the pleader is entitled to relief; it is deficient if it fails to allege facts pertaining to an essential element of a cause of action. On appeal, the court will not research or develop arguments for the appellant, and failure to make a convincing, developed argument with supporting authority is itself a sufficient basis to affirm, even for a pro se appellant.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Pulaski County, Nora Ellison sued four members of a neighborhood association, alleging "fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy" over the sale of common-area land. Her complaint stated that "all defendants acted unlawfully and damaged me" but included no concrete facts describing what one defendant, Mason Pike, actually did.

If Mason moves to dismiss under Arkansas Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6), how should the court most likely rule?

Explanation. Arkansas is a fact-pleading state. A complaint must contain facts, in ordinary and concise language, showing the pleader is entitled to relief; mere conclusions are insufficient. A pleading is deficient if it fails to set forth facts pertaining to an essential element of a claim, and a total absence of factual allegations against a defendant supports dismissal under Rules 8(a) and 12(b)(6). (Derived from Wagoner v. Wagoner (n.d.).)