Susan Williams ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
2019.01.03 DIVISION IV
12:40:40 -06'00' No.CV-12-660
Opinion Delivered September 25, 2013
ALLEN HALL APPEAL FROM THE MISSISSIPPI
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
OSCEOLA DISTRICT
V. [NO. CV-2009-128]
NANCY HALL and NANCY HALL HONORABLE RANDY F.
ENTERPRISES, INC. fka and/or dba PHILHOURS, JUDGE
J.W. HALL AUTO SALES
APPELLEES AFFIRMED
RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge
Appellant Allen Hall appeals from a directed verdict entered on his breach-of-contract
claim against appellee Nancy Hall and her business, Nancy Hall Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a/ J.W.
Hall Auto Sales. We affirm.
Appellee was married to appellant’s brother, J.W. Hall, who owned an auto, salvage,
and rental business. In 2005, J.W. Hall died, and appellee inherited the business. Appellant
worked for the business before and after the death of J.W. Hall. Appellant asserts that when
he informed appellee that he would no longer work for the business after J.W. Hall’s debts
were paid, appellee asked him to continue working for the business and agreed to transfer a
one-half interest in the business and other property she inherited from her husband. Appellant
contends that he accepted the offer, assumed additional responsibilities, and managed the
Cite as
business. Appellee characterizes her offer to transfer an ownership interest in the business as
a gift and that she only agreed to give appellant a one-third interest.
In 2008, appellee’s attorney sent appellant some letters and paperwork gifting appellant
a one-third ownership interest in J.W. Hall Auto Sales and other property. Appellant,
however, believed that he was entitled to a one-half interest in the business and all property
in which his brother had owned an interest, and sued appellee for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and fraud. Appellee then refused to transfer any interest to appellant and filed
counterclaims for unjust enrichment and conversion of business property.
The court conducted a jury trial. At the end of appellant’s case, appellee moved for a
directed verdict. The court denied the motion as to fraud and unjust enrichment, but granted
it as to appellant’s breach-of-contract claim, ruling that the parties had never reached an
agreement and that appellant had stayed with the business only out of respect for his brother.
In determining whether a directed verdict should have been granted, we review the
evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict is sought and give
it its highest probative value, taking into account all reasonable inferences deducible from
it. Smith v. Heather Manor Care Ctr., Inc.,
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion for directed
verdict on the breach-of-contract claim. We disagree. The essential elements of a contract
2
Cite as
(2005). Appellant failed to produce substantial evidence of mutual agreement. Although
he testified that appellee agreed to transfer a one-half interest in the business to him, the
written documents reflected only a one-third interest. Thus, taking the evidence presented
by appellant in the light most favorable to him—even if the parties were leaning toward
creating a contract and not a gift—there was no meeting of the minds as to the percent of
ownership to be transferred. The trial court did not, therefore, err in granting the motion for
directed verdict.
Affirmed.
GRUBER and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
Hale, Young & Partlow, by: James C. Hale, III and Laura E. Partlow, for appellant.
Banks Law Firm, PLLC, by: Charles A. Banks and Robert W. Francis, for appellees.
3
