Burton v. Am. Gamebird Research Educ. & Dev. Found., Inc. (Majority)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 283 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISIONS I, III & IV No. CV-16-936 THOMAS BURTON AND CINDY BURTON APPELLANTS V. AMERICAN GAMEBIRD RESEARCH EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION, INC. APPELLEE Opinion Delivered: May 10, 2017 APPEAL FROM THE LAFAYETTE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 37CV-15-21] HONORABLE CARLTON D. JONES, JUDGE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE RITA W. GRUBER, Chief Judge Thomas and Cindy Burton appeal the denial of their motion for attorney’s fees in the action filed against them by American Gamebird Research Education and Development Foundation, Inc. (AGRED). This case is a companion case to American Gamebird Research Education & Development Foundation, Inc. v. Burton, 2017 Ark. App. 297, which we also hand down today. The Burtons assert that under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-22-308 (Repl. 1999), they were entitled to attorney’s fees as the prevailing party in a contract case. AGRED responds that attorney’s fees were unavailable because its claim sounded in tort. The Burtons’ sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in ruling that attorney’s fees were statutorily unavailable. Because today we reverse and remand the underlying case, see id., the merits of the present appeal are not ripe for our review. Dismissed without prejudice. VIRDEN, GLADWIN , HARRISON, GLOVER, WHITEAKER, HIXSON, MURPHY, and BROWN, JJ., agree. Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 283 McMath Woods P.A., by: Samuel E. Ledbetter; and Joseph Hamilton Kemp, PLLC, by: Joseph Hamilton Kemp, for appellants. Bell & Boyd, PLLC, by: Michael W. Boyd and Karen Talbot Gean, for appellee. 2

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.