DC Xpress, LLC v. Briggs
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 651
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
CA08-1247
No.
DC XPRESS, L.L.C. and ROBERT
SANDERS
APPELLANTS
Opinion Delivered
October 7, 2009
V.
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CV2006-12886]
MARK BRIGGS
HONORABLE ALICE SPRINKLE
GRAY, JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge
DC Xpress, L.L.C., and Robert Sanders (DC Xpress) appeal from an order of the
Pulaski County Circuit Court finding them in default and granting judgment on a promissory
note held by Mark Briggs. The order also rejected DC Xpress’s counterclaim against Briggs
for deceit and breach of fiduciary duty. On appeal, DC Xpress argues that the trial court
erred by finding that Briggs proved his damages and awarding pre- and post-judgment
interest; rejecting their counterclaims for deceit and breach of fiduciary duty; and allowing
Briggs to use a deposition of Jill Sanders, who was not present at trial, to impeach Robert
Sanders. We affirm.
For expediency, we will set forth those facts that are not in dispute and recount the
trial testimony as it relates to each point when we take up DC Xpress’s argument. In January
2003, Sanders and Briggs formed a trucking company, DC Xpress, L.L.C. Briggs provided
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 651
all of the capital to acquire assets of a failing trucking firm owned by Sanders’s parents.
Sanders proposed to earn his fifty-percent interest in the company through “sweat equity.”
Briggs, a computer programmer who had worked for twenty-one years as Quality
Foods’s data-processing manager, knew nothing about the trucking business. Nonetheless,
he was named in the DC Xpress operating agreement as the “operating manager,” which was
defined as the chief executive officer of the company. Concomitantly, Briggs accepted
employment as a data-processing consultant for Quality Foods. He performed most, if not
all, of his consulting on the business premises of DC Xpress.
The relationship between Sanders and Briggs quickly soured. Sanders decided to buy
out Briggs’s interest in DC Xpress, and entered into a prolonged process that ultimately
produced a business separation agreement. On December 14, 2004, Briggs, individually, and
Sanders, both individually and as “managing member” of DC Xpress, signed the agreement.
The writing, which contained an integration clause, specified that Briggs would relinquish his
fifty-percent interest in the company in exchange for the return of his capital1 and a further
$85,000 payment. The agreement also stated that Sanders and DC Xpress would release
Briggs from “any and all obligations of the company.” Sanders and DC Xpress promised to
give Briggs a $75,000 lump-sum payment upon execution of the agreement, and the balance
of $134,770.39 was secured by a $30,000 “Quick Pay Note,” which required six monthly
1
The writing recited that Briggs provided the initial capital to DC Xpress, $172,977.86.
Of that sum, $129, 770.39 was currently owed to Briggs after deductions for various monies
received.
-2-
CA08-1247
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 651
payments of $5000, and a $109,770.39 “Term Note,” which payed six-percent interest and
required thirty-eight $3104.97 monthly payments to amortize the balance.
Sanders and DC Xpress paid the lump-sum payment and the Quick Pay Note as
specified in the agreement. They also made monthly payments on the Term Note for a year.
However, payments ceased, and on November 3, 2006, Briggs sued DC Xpress for
$82,440.70 plus interest. DC Xpress filed a general denial and counterclaimed, asserting
deceit, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion.2 Regarding the breach of fiduciary duty
claims, it was DC Xpress’s theory that those causes of action arose from Briggs pursuing his
consulting business on the DC Xpress premises, his failure to become more actively involved
in the management of the trucking company, and allegations that Briggs told the company
bookkeeper, Jill Sanders, not to forward payroll taxes to the IRS when the company had a
cash-flow problem. The deceit claim was apparently based on allegations that Briggs
overstated the value of the company in the buy-out negotiations.
The trial court found in favor of Briggs and granted judgment in the amount of
$72,510.75, plus six-percent pre-judgment interest from the date of the last payment and
post-judgment interest of ten percent. The trial court apparently arrived at that number by
noting that under the terms of the Term Note, DC Xpress was obligated to pay $109,770.39
in thirty-eight monthly payments of $3,089.64. DC Xpress was granted judgment in its
2
The conversion claim involved a $10,095 certificate of deposit containing DC Xpress
funds that was retained by Briggs and a deed to a vacant lot in Hot Springs Village that had an
approximate value of $4000. DC Xpress prevailed on these claims, and they are not an issue in
this appeal.
-3-
CA08-1247
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 651
“counterclaims”3 for a CD containing business funds that Briggs had wrongfully retained and
real estate that was titled in the name of Briggs and Sanders that Briggs had transferred
“without authority.”
DC Xpress first argues that the trial court erred by finding that Briggs proved his
damages and established his entitlement to pre- and post-judgment interest. It points to
Briggs’s testimony that he could not figure out the interest that had accrued on the Note
without an amortization schedule. Further, DC Xpress cites the trial court’s finding that
“neither party presented adequate evidence as to the amount of interest that accrued on the
Term Note,” and asserts that the trial court erred when it awarded interest “on its own
accord.” We believe that this argument mischaracterizes the trial court’s ruling as well as the
evidence presented in the case.
In bench trials, the standard of review on appeal is whether the trial court’s findings
were clearly erroneous or clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Smith v. Eisen,
97 Ark. App. 130, 245 S.W.3d 160 (2006). We give due deference to the superior position
of the trial court to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be accorded
their testimony. Id. Further, it is within the province of the trier of fact to resolve conflicting
testimony. Id.
At the trial, Briggs introduced the separation agreement and the Term Note. He
testified that he had only received twelve of the thirty-six payments due on the Term Note,
3
Although the trial court did not specifically mention the breach of fiduciary duty and
deceit counts, the order nonetheless purports to dispose of the claims.
-4-
CA08-1247
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 651
approximately $36,000. Briggs stated that, based on a document prepared by his attorney, as
of trial, he was owed $92,344.72. He further asserted that he was owed interest on the
unpaid balance on the Term Note. On cross-examination, Briggs was presented with a
pocket calculator by DC Xpress’s attorney and asked to calculate the interest owed to him,
but expressed his inability to make such a calculation.
Contrary to DC Xpress’s assertions, the amount owed under the Term Note was
readily ascertainable from the proof presented at trial. Sanders did not controvert Briggs’s
testimony that he received only twelve of the thirty-eight $3,089.64 monthly payments
required by the express terms of the Term Note. This evidence yielded an easily deducible
balance when DC Xpress stopped making payments. The Term Note also recited that the
unpaid balance would be subject to six-percent interest. Finally, post-judgment interest is
required by statute. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-65-114(a) (Repl. 1999).
DC Xpress next argues that the trial court erred by not finding in his favor in his
counterclaim for deceit and breach of fiduciary duty. We first note that while DC Xpress
mentions “deceit” in the heading of this point, it is not developed in his argument. We
therefore conclude that it is only concerned with the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim.
Regarding the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim, DC Xpress concedes that pursuant to Arkansas
Code Annotated section 4-32-304 (Repl. 2001),4 for Briggs to be liable for breach of
4
Except for the personal liability for acts or omissions of those providing professional
service as set forth in § 4-32-308 (Repl. 2001), a person who is a member, manager, agent or
employee of a limited liability company is not liable for a debt, obligation, or liability of the
limited liability company, whether arising in contract, tort, or otherwise or for the acts or
-5-
CA08-1247
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 651
fiduciary duty as a manager of a limited liability company he would have to prove that Briggs
engaged in gross negligence or willful conduct, but asserts that standard was met. It asserts
that Briggs breached his fiduciary duty because he “did not actively try to educate himself in
ways of the trucking industry,” which were part of his duties as the operating manager. It also
asserts that Briggs’s simultaneous operation of a computer-consulting business, which he
termed “detrimental” to DC Xpress, and his reluctance to “get involved in the operations”
was further evidence of Briggs’s breach of fiduciary duty. Finally, DC Xpress argues that this
breach of fiduciary duty resulted in damages from “unnecessary tax liability” and penalties
from the IRS and the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission. We find no error on
this point.
Breach of fiduciary duty involves betrayal of a trust and benefit by the dominant party
at the expense of one under his influence. Cole v. Laws, 349 Ark. 177, 185, 76 S.W.3d 878,
883 (2002) (citing 36A C.J.S., Fiduciary, pp. 388–389 (1961)). A person standing in a
fiduciary relationship may be held liable for any conduct that breaches a duty imposed by the
fiduciary relationship. Id. Moreover, regardless of the express terms of an agreement, a
fiduciary may be held liable for conduct that does not meet the requisite standards of fair
dealing, good faith, honesty, and loyalty. Id. The guiding principle of the fiduciary
relationship is that self-dealing, absent the consent of the other party to the relationship, is
strictly proscribed. Id.
omissions of any other member, manager, agent, or employee of the limited liability company.
Ark. Code Ann. § 4-32-304.
-6-
CA08-1247
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 651
We attribute the trial court’s failure to find in favor of DC Xpress to a failure of proof.
We summarize its case as follows. Bob Sanders and Michael Vogelpohl testified that Briggs
worked at his consulting business during business hours. DC Xpress’s expert, Donald Dane
Davis, stated that Briggs did not perform many of the duties associated with similarly situated
managers in the trucking industry. Bob Sanders also testified that Briggs directed his wife, Jill
Sanders, not to forward payroll taxes to the Internal Revenue Service and to under-report
payroll hours to the company’s workers’ compensation carrier.
Briggs denied these
allegations, and Sanders’s testimony on this issue was impeached at trial.
Contrary to DC Xpress’s apparent theory of the case, the mere fact that a chief
operating officer pursues other business ventures does not constitute a breach of the duty of
loyalty. While Briggs may have been occupied doing tasks that did not advance the interest
of DC Xpress, it is abundantly clear that Briggs’s consulting business did not compete with
DC Xpress in the trucking business or in any way injure DC Xpress. Moreover, Briggs
testified that his duties consisted of securing capital for DC Xpress, not directing day-to-day
operations. It was uncontroverted that Sanders and company president Allen Crump were
supposed to be taking care of that aspect of the company’s management.
Further, we cannot say that the evidence supports the allegation by DC Xpress that the
damages they sought were proximately caused by Briggs’s conduct. It should be noted that
absent specific findings, we presume that the trial court acted properly and made the findings
necessary to support its judgment. Tillery v. Evans, 67 Ark. App. 43, 991 S.W.2d 644 (1999);
-7-
CA08-1247
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 651
Jocon, Inc. v. Hoover, 61 Ark. App. 10, 964 S.W.2d 213 (1998). As noted previously, Bob
Sanders asserted that Briggs told Jill Sanders not to pay the payroll taxes and underreport
payroll to their workers’ compensation carrier, and Briggs denied doing so. Sanders was
impeached on this issue both by Jill Sanders’s deposition and by a letter authored by Bob
Sanders to Virgil Young, dated July 20, 2004, stating that the company had “changed locks
and passwords to prevent any further intrusion by Mr. Briggs on our property.” It was not
disputed that the failure to forward payroll taxes to the IRS occurred in the last quarter of
2004, when according to the Sanders letter, Briggs was excluded from the premises.
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court’s decision not to find for DC Xpress on its breachof-fiduciary-duty claim was not clearly erroneous.
For its final point, DC Xpress argues that the trial court erred in allowing Briggs to
impeach him with Jill Sanders’s deposition when none of the five conditions set forth in Rule
32(a)(3) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure were shown to exist.5 It asserts that Crisp
v. Brown, 4 Ark. App. 208, 628 S.W.2d 596 (1982), requires that we reverse and remand this
case on this point. We disagree. A trial court is accorded wide discretion in evidentiary
5
In pertinent part, the subsection states: The deposition of a witness, whether or not a
party, may be used by any party for any purpose if the court finds: (A) that the witness is dead;
or (B) that the witness is at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial or hearing, or
is out of this state, unless it appears that the absence of a witness was procured by the party
offering the deposition; or (C) that the witness is unable to attend or testify because of age,
illness, infirmity, or imprisonment; or (D) the party offering the deposition has been unable to
procure the attendance of the witness by subpoena; or (E) upon application and notice, that such
exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interest of justice and with due
regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow
the deposition to be used. Ark. R. Civ. P. 32(a)(3).
-8-
CA08-1247
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 651
rulings, and will not be reversed on such rulings absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Arthur
v. Zearley, 337 Ark. 125, 992 S.W.2d 67 (1999). It is, of course, axiomatic that it is
incumbent upon the appellant to establish by specific argument that the trial court erred.
We note that in arguing for the use of Jill Sanders’s deposition to impeach Robert
Sanders, Briggs directed the trial court to subsection (a)(1) of Rule 32, not subsection (a)(3).
Indeed, at trial, Briggs conceded that use of the deposition would not be permissible if he was
proceeding under subsection (a)(3). It is apparent that the trial judge agreed with Briggs when
she allowed him to use the deposition. This fact is of pivotal importance.
Section (a) of Rule 32 states in pertinent part:
At the trial . . . any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of
evidence applied as though the witness were then present and testifying, may be used
against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or
who had reasonable notice thereof, in accordance with any of the following provisions
. . ..
(Emphasis is added.) The plain wording of Section (a) puts subsection (a)(1) on an equal
footing with subsection (a)(3). The former is not limited by the availability of the witness,
but rather only by the admissibility of the deposition under the Arkansas Rules of Evidence.
Because each subsection presents a different criterion for use of a deposition, to prevail on
appeal, DC Xpress had to focus its argument on the section that was actually used by the trial
judge in her ruling. Clearly, DC Xpress makes no argument concerning subsection (a)(1).
Accordingly, this failure is fatal to its argument on appeal. In closing, we note that DC
Xpress’s reliance on Crisp does not compel a different result. In Crisp, the court of appeals
-9-
CA08-1247
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 651
held that a deposition was improperly admitted into evidence because it contained
inadmissible hearsay, which of course is not admissible under the Arkansas Rules of Evidence,
and, more importantly, clearly not the issue before us.
Affirmed.
VAUGHT, C.J., and GRUBER, J., agree.
-10-
CA08-1247
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.