Woodend v. Southland Racing Corp.

Citations: 337 Ark. 380; 989 S.W.2d 505; 1999 Ark. LEXIS 216Docket: 99-63

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; May 6, 1999; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Appellant Daniel J. Woodend, a long-time bettor at Southland Racing Corporation, placed a pari-mutuel "twin-trifecta" wager on September 27, 1997. This type of bet requires selecting three dogs to finish first, second, and third in exact order in two consecutive races to win a jackpot. In his wager, Woodend successfully picked the correct dogs in the fourth race but failed to do so in the sixth race. Although he could have claimed a consolation payout under Arkansas Racing Commission Rule 3158(P) if no other bettors had winning combinations, two other bettors selected the exact finishing order required and received the payout of $8,557.10.

Woodend sued Southland, claiming his ticket was valid based on conflicting language in the official racing program regarding the Twin-Tri payout procedures, which he argued constituted a contractual obligation. The program suggested a different payout structure that Woodend believed supported his claim to the consolation payoff. However, Southland contended that the program's language pertained only to the Tri-Super bet requiring four dogs, not the three required for the Twin-Tri.

The trial court ruled in favor of Southland, granting summary judgment based on the finding that the wager described in the official program was unauthorized by the Arkansas Racing Commission, rendering it illegal, void, and unenforceable. The court did not adopt Southland's reasoning regarding the program's language but concluded the issue based on public policy concerns.

Woodend appeals on three grounds for reversal: (1) He argues that his twin-trifecta wager and the alleged winning ticket formed a contract with Southland, creating a valid issue of fact regarding his entitlement to recovery. (2) He claims Southland fraudulently misrepresented the payoff directions for the wager in its official program. (3) He asserts that Southland violated his due-process rights by failing to communicate the Twin-Tri rules to the public as required by regulatory standards and misdesignating those rules in the program. He also vaguely argues that the public lacks recourse against race tracks for accepting illegal wagers.

The court declines to address Woodend's due-process claims as they were not raised in the trial court, leaving only the contract and fraud claims for consideration, which are deemed meritless. Regarding the contract argument, Arkansas law assigns the Racing Commission authority to set rules for greyhound racing, under which Woodend lost his wager because other bettors selected winning dogs as per established priority. Even if Woodend’s wager constituted a contract, he did not hold a winning ticket according to Arkansas law, and he acknowledged the Commission's authority over wager payouts.

Woodend's fraud claim, alleging that Southland misrepresented payoff instructions, also fails. To establish fraud, a plaintiff must prove a false representation, defendant's knowledge of its falsity, intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance, and resulting damage. Woodend's complaint lacks specific factual allegations showing that Southland knew it misrepresented facts or that he relied on any misstatement. Therefore, his fraud claim is rejected.

Woodend's fraud claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of justifiable reliance. He was aware that Southland was obligated to make payoffs according to the Commission's rules and had previously won a Twin-Tri wager under similar conditions. Woodend acknowledged he only briefly reviewed the official program and did not thoroughly study it. Additionally, he failed to demonstrate any damages from misrepresentation, as he admitted he was not entitled to recover under the applicable Commission regulations or Rule 3158(P), which defines the winning combinations for Twin-Tri wagers. The trial court granted summary judgment to Southland, determining that the payoff for the Twin-Tri bet was unauthorized and constituted an illegal wager, unenforceable under Ark. Code Ann. 16-118-103 (1987). The ruling affirms that Woodend did not establish a contractual or misrepresentation claim and confirms the legality and applicability of Rule 3158(P) in this case. Furthermore, the term "ALL" is clarified as a legal term meaning any entrant in the race, akin to a "wild card."