Clarence Roberts v. Christine Bendos
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
PUBLISHED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, CHIEF JUDGE
DIVISION IV
CA07-903
CLARENCE ROBERTS
June 4, 2008
APPELLANT
V.
CHRISTINE BENDOS
APPEAL FROM SALINE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-20061279-3]
HON. GRISHAM A. PHILLIPS,
JUDGE
APPELLEE
REVERSED AND REMANDED
This is an appeal from dismissal of a lawsuit alleging that appellee, a resident of
Virginia, entered into a contract with appellant, an Arkansas resident, for appellant to pursue
a wrongful-death action in Arkansas on appellee’s behalf by acting as special administrator of
a lawsuit for the wrongful death of appellee’s sister. It was also alleged that, in return for
acting in this capacity, appellee agreed to pay appellant fifty percent of the monies that
appellee would receive from the lawsuit; that a settlement in excess of one million dollars was
reached through appellant’s efforts; and that appellee was in breach of that contract by failing
to compensate appellant as promised in the parties’ contract. On appellee’s motion, the trial
court dismissed appellant’s suit on the grounds that Arkansas lacked personal jurisdiction over
appellee. Appellant contends that this was error. We agree, and we reverse.
Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-4-101(B) (Repl. 1999), Arkansas courts have
personal jurisdiction of all persons, and all causes of action or claims for relief, to the
maximum extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. The United States Supreme Court has established a two-pronged
test to determine whether state courts may maintain personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
person under the Due Process Clause. The party must first show that the nonresident has had
sufficient “minimum contacts” with this state and, second, must show that the court's exercise
of jurisdiction would not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.”
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). A finding of personal
jurisdiction must be based on some act by which the defendant purposefully avails himself or
herself of the privilege of conducting business in the forum state. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S.
235 (1957), and the contacts should be such as would cause a defendant to have a reasonable
anticipation that he or she would be haled into court in that state. World-Wide Volkswagen
Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980). We have considered the following factors in deciding
whether or not a nonresident's contacts with the forum state were sufficient to impose
jurisdiction: (1) the nature and quality of the contacts with the forum state; (2) the quantity
of the contacts with the forum state; (3) the relation of the cause of action to the contacts; (4)
the interest of the forum state in providing a forum for its residents; and (5) the convenience
of the parties. Moran v. Bombardier Credit, Inc., 39 Ark. App. 122, 839 S.W.2d 538 (1992).
Whether the “minimum contacts” requirement has been satisfied is a question of fact, and
each question of jurisdiction must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Id.
We hold without hesitation that the trial court did in fact have personal jurisdiction
over appellee in the case at bar. It was alleged that appellee had visited her sister several times
-2-
CA07-903
in Arkansas and that, during one such visit, she arranged for appellant to help care for her
sister. As the sister’s health deteriorated, she was placed in various Arkansas nursing homes,
one of which ultimately being the defendant in the wrongful-death lawsuit. Although the
lawsuit was brought in the name of the sister’s estate, appellee was her sister’s sole heir-at-law,
and the proceeds of the wrongful-death lawsuit were the sole asset of the estate. This asset
was obtained through the efforts of appellant, pursuant to an agreement with appellee that was
performed in Arkansas, by terms of which appellant investigated and pursued the wrongfuldeath lawsuit as special administrator, an office to which he acceded pursuant to the
agreement and to which he was appointed by the Circuit Court of Saline County, Arkansas.
Thus, the contract required appellant to participate in the express invocation of the
jurisdiction of the Arkansas courts to procure the only asset of the estate of appellee’s sister,
to be administered and distributed by an Arkansas court in a probate proceeding in which
appellee participated by voluntarily entering an appearance. The requisite minimum contacts
exist because appellee has purposefully availed herself of the process and protection of the
Arkansas courts to procure a large sum of money, and should have reasonably anticipated
being required to appear in an Arkansas court if a dispute arose regarding an agreement,
performed in Arkansas, that was an integral part in her procurement of that money.
Requiring her to so appear in this case manifestly does not offend notions of fair play and
substantial justice, and we hold that the trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s lawsuit. See
Payne v. France, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (April 10, 2008).
-3-
CA07-903
Reversed and remanded for further consistent proceedings.
BIRD and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.
-4-
CA07-903
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.