Taurus Leasing Corp. v. Howard

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Taurus Leasing Corp. v. Howard

614 S.W.2d 502, 272 Ark. 323, 1981 Ark. LEXIS 1271

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedApril 20, 1981

Docket81-19

StatusPublished

This text of 614 S.W.2d 502 (Taurus Leasing Corp. v. Howard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Taurus Leasing Corp. v. Howard, 614 S.W.2d 502, 272 Ark. 323, 1981 Ark. LEXIS 1271 (Ark. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice.

Appellant, Taurus

Leasing Corporation, brings this appeal from a summary judgment declaring void a written contract between it and appellee, Jerry Howard, as being usurious and made in violation of the Wingo Act, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 64-1201 et seq. (Repl. 1980); and, from a summary judgment granting the appellee, State of Arkansas, a money penalty against it for doing business in Arkansas in violation of the Wingo Act.

Summary judgment is properly granted if the moving party has established of record that no genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. See Rule 56, Ark. Rules Civ. Proc., Ark. Stat. Ann., Vol. 3A (Repl. 1979); UPI v. Hernreich, 241 Ark. 36, 406 S.W. 2d 317 (1966).

In this case the trial court apparently granted summary judgment based upon conclusory allegations in the complaint and upon affidavits stating that a written contract for the sale and lease-back of office equipment had been entered into between appellant, a foreign corporation, and appellee, Howard, an Arkansas resident. However, we find no admitted allegations, supporting affidavits, or other proof of record from which the trial court could have found that the contract was made in Arkansas; therefore, the unresolved fact question of where the contract was made is one that remains for trial as to each matter upon which summary judgment was granted.

Reversed and remanded.

Holt, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice.

Appellant, Taurus

Leasing Corporation, brings this appeal from a summary judgment declaring void a written contract between it and appellee, Jerry Howard, as being usurious and made in violation of the Wingo Act, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 64-1201 et seq. (Repl. 1980); and, from a summary judgment granting the appellee, State of Arkansas, a money penalty against it for doing business in Arkansas in violation of the Wingo Act.

Summary judgment is properly granted if the moving party has established of record that no genuine issue of material fact remains for trial. See Rule 56, Ark. Rules Civ. Proc., Ark. Stat. Ann., Vol. 3A (Repl. 1979); UPI v. Hernreich, 241 Ark. 36, 406 S.W. 2d 317 (1966).

In this case the trial court apparently granted summary judgment based upon conclusory allegations in the complaint and upon affidavits stating that a written contract for the sale and lease-back of office equipment had been entered into between appellant, a foreign corporation, and appellee, Howard, an Arkansas resident. However, we find no admitted allegations, supporting affidavits, or other proof of record from which the trial court could have found that the contract was made in Arkansas; therefore, the unresolved fact question of where the contract was made is one that remains for trial as to each matter upon which summary judgment was granted.

Reversed and remanded.

Holt, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

614 S.W.2d 502, 272 Ark. 323, 1981 Ark. LEXIS 1271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taurus-leasing-corp-v-howard-ark-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack