Motion to Amend in Arkansas

Background

“Rule 15 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure encourages liberal amendments of pleadings.” (Neal v. Sparks Reg'l Med. Ctr., 2012 Ark. 328, at 12, 422 S.W.3d 116.)

Rule 15(a) states in pertinent part:

“[A] party may amend his pleadings at any time without leave of the court. Where, however, upon motion of an opposing party, the court determines that prejudice would result or the disposition of the cause would be unduly delayed because of the filing of an amendment, the court may strike such amended pleading or grant a continuance of the proceeding.” (Ark. R. Civ. P. 15(a) [2012].)

Pleading Requirements

“A pleading must contain, inter alia, a statement of facts, in ordinary and concise language, showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” (Thomas v. Pierce (2004) 87 Ark. App. 26, 28-29 quoting Ark. R. Civ. P. 8(a).)

“A pleading is deficient if it fails to set forth facts pertaining to an essential element of the cause of action.” (Id., ciitng Wiseman v. Batchelor (1993) 315 Ark. 85.)

“Arkansas is a state that requires fact pleading, and a pleading which sets forth mere conclusions is not sufficient under the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. [...] Nevertheless, pleadings are to be liberally construed and are sufficient if they advise a party of its obligations and allege a breach of them.” (Thomas v. Pierce, supra, 87 Ark. App. 28-29 [internal citations omitted].)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

Arkansas courts “have established a test to determine whether an amendment is prejudicial.” To that end, the court examines “whether the party opposing the motion will have a fair opportunity to defend after the amendment.” (Cross v. Cross (2016) 497 S.W.3d 712, 717 quoting Travis v. Houk (1991) 307 Ark. 84, 86;accord, Turner v. Stewart (1997) 330 Ark. 134; Thomas v. Pierce (2004) 87 Ark. App. 26.)

For example, in Cross v. Cross, the court highlighted how the “[a]ppellants argue[d] that they were prejudiced in three ways:

1. that appellees did not make the motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof until after they had rested;
2. that they were prejudiced when appellees renewed the motion at the close of all of the evidence because they did not introduce any evidence in opposition to the objected-to evidence to support the claim of boundary by acquiescence; and
3. because they did not subpoena witnesses to meet the claim.”

(Cross v. Cross (2016) 497 S.W.3d 712, 717.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The trial court is vested with broad discretion in allowing or denying amendments.” (Grinnell v. Garnet Real Estate LLC (2013) 427 S.W.3d 717, 722 citing Neal, supra, 2012 Ark. 328, at 12.)

“While Rule 15 allows for liberal amendments of pleadings, [reviewing courts] adhere to [the] well-established standard of review that [and] will not reverse a trial court's decision allowing or denying amendments to pleadings absent a manifest abuse of discretion.” (Id.)

The Court’s Decision

“In King v. State, Office of Child Support Enforcement [58 Ark. App. 298, 952 S.W.2d 180 (1997)], a complaint was treated as amended, despite the lack of a ruling on a motion to amend to conform to the proof, where discussion between the trial court and counsel and the result of the case indicated that the amendment had occurred.” (Cross v. Cross (2016) 497 S.W.3d 712, 717 citing id.; Jones v. Ray (1996) 54 Ark. App. 336; In re Estate of Tucker (1994) 46 Ark. App. 322, 881 S.W.2d 226.)

In Thomas v. Pierce, 87 Ark. App. 26, 28 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004) the reviewing court “note[d] that appellants did amend their complaint to remove their claim for a specific amount of damages prior to appellee's second motion to dismiss and the trial court's order of dismissal; consequently, [the reviewing court] discount[ed] this ground as a basis for the trial court's ruling. Refusal to permit the amendment under these circumstances would be an abuse of discretion.” (Id.; see also, Travis v. Houk (1991) 307 Ark. 84, 817 S.W.2d 207.)