Albert Bell v. J.W. Green Jr. and Brad Green

ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

PER CURIAM

May 31, 2001

ALBERT BELL

APPELLANT

v.

J.W. GREEN JR. AND BRAD GREEN

APPELLEES

99-840

AN APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARKANSAS COUNTY,

NO. CIV-98-76

HONORABLE DAVID B. BOGARD,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant, Albert Bell, filed a malpractice complaint against two attorneys. The complaint was dismissed on the appellees' motion for summary judgment, and appellant has lodged an appeal in this court. Appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. We affirm.

Summary judgment should only be granted when there are no genuine issues of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Cherepski v. Walker, 323 Ark. 43, 913 S.W.2d 761 (1996). We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was filed, resolving all doubts and inferences against the moving party. Id. Our review is limited to an examination of the evidentiary items presented below in order to determine whetherthe trial court correctly ruled that those items left no material factor in dispute. Id. 1

At the end of the hearing on appellees' motion for summary judgment, the court found:

Well, this court has to agree with the defense, Mr. Bell, that your lawsuit was filed too late. The statute began running the day that you say the negligence occurred. If, in fact, it did occur, the limitations expired before you filed your lawsuit.

The trial court also made an alternative finding that probable cause had already been found to exist to support appellant's warrantless arrest. See State v. Bell, 329 Ark. 422, 948 S.W.2d 557 (1997). The trial court noted that collateral estoppel applied and that appellant's complaint also failed on that ground.

In this appeal, appellant only argues that the trial court erred in finding that collateral estoppel applied barring appellant's claim that his counsel was negligent for failing to challenge appellant's arrest under Ark. R. Crim. P. 4.1(d). Appellant completely fails to challenge the basis of the trial court's ruling that the statute of limitations had run on appellant's claim for legal malpractice. Since 1877, this court has consistently held that the three-year limitations period applies to legal malpractice actions. Chapman v. Alexander, 307 Ark. 87, 817 S.W.2d 425 (1991) (citing White v. Reagan, 32 Ark. 281 (1877)). Because appellant has failed to contest the primary ruling by the trial court in granting summary judgment, there is no basis for this appeal. Thus, we affirm the trial court's unchallenged ruling that the statute of limitations as set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105 (1987) had run barring appellant's action for legal malpractice.

Affirmed.

1 We note that appellant has included material in his abstract that was not presented to the trial court. As the appellees indicate in their brief, information on pages A1 through A50 of appellant's abstract was not part of the trial court record. Thus, it will not be considered by this court in reviewing appellant's argument on appeal.