Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Barnes v. Pearson Termite & Pest Control, Inc.
Citations: 271 Ark. 251; 608 S.W.2d 19; 1980 Ark. LEXIS 1694Docket: 80-164
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; December 1, 1980; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
The case involves an appeal stemming from a prior ruling in Barnes v. Pearson Termite and Pest Control, Inc., where a corporation was dissolved as of November 1, 1976, and both parties were entitled to half of the accounts of the corporation. Following this, Barnes filed a new petition alleging that Pearson had failed to properly divide 83 business accounts after the dissolution. Pearson denied the allegations, claiming he properly disclosed and divided the accounts. The chancellor appointed a master to assess the accounts and subsequently ruled that accounts existing as of the dissolution date would be equitably divided, while those arising afterward would belong to the individual parties. Barnes amended his petition to seek a bill of review, asserting he was unaware of the accounts at the time of the first trial. During a hearing on Pearson's motion to dismiss, no testimony was taken, and the chancellor based his dismissal on the finality of the previous ruling without making a determination on the timing of the accounts. Barnes contended that the chancellor erred by not considering the master’s report and dismissing the petition without evidence. The appellate court noted that unless the disputed accounts arose before the dissolution and were undiscoverable by Barnes, the dismissal was justified. However, the court could not ascertain if the dismissal was indeed based on this rationale. The court concluded that Barnes deserves a hearing to enforce the equitable division of undiscovered assets existing on the dissolution date and remanded the case for further factual determination. The prior decision was reversed and remanded.