Here’s an analysis of Centofante v. Ferguson (Arkansas Court of Appeals, 2025 Ark. App. 303). You can read the text of the opinion by clicking here.
Background
A group of property owners and the Pinnacle Mountain Community Coalition (“the Coalition”) filed a lawsuit against Rick Ferguson and associated entities (“the Ferguson Appellees”). The dispute centered on the development of the Paradise Valley subdivision in Roland, Arkansas. The Coalition alleged that the development caused increased stormwater runoff, resulting in flooding of their properties and a local county road (Roland Cut Off Road), and posed a threat to local watersheds supplying drinking water.
The Coalition sought an injunction to halt the development, citing public and private nuisance, diversion of water, and negligence.
Procedural History
- The Ferguson Appellees (and Pulaski County) moved to dismiss, arguing the case belonged in county court, not circuit court, under Article 7, Section 28 of the Arkansas Constitution, since it allegedly involved county roads.
- The circuit court agreed, dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and transferred the case to Pulaski County Court.
- The Coalition appealed.
Issues on Appeal
- Did the circuit court err in finding it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Article 7, Section 28?
- Did the court err by transferring the case to county court?
Court's Analysis
- Jurisdiction Interpretation: Article 7, Section 28 gives county courts exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to county “taxes, roads, bridges, ferries,” and other local concerns. But the court clarified that “relating to” does not mean every case that touches a county issue must be handled by county court.
- Nature of the Claims: The court found the Coalition’s complaint was not “obviously flowing from” a county road matter. Instead, the claims were based on alleged damage to private property, with flooding of the road as a secondary effect.
- Remedy Sought: The Coalition sought an injunction, which is a remedy handled by circuit courts, not county courts.
- Precedent: The court cited prior cases confirming that circuit courts have jurisdiction over injunctions and property disputes, even if a county road is incidentally involved.
Holding
- The circuit court abused its discretion by dismissing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- Circuit court is the proper forum for these claims.
- The issue of transferring to county court became moot.
Result: The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal and remanded the case to the circuit court for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- Jurisdiction hinges on the primary nature of the complaint and the remedy sought, not just incidental involvement of a county road.
- Circuit courts retain jurisdiction over injunctions and property disputes, even if county-related issues are implicated.
- The court will look at the facts alleged in the complaint, not just procedural arguments, when determining jurisdiction.
Girards Law Firm specializes in severe injury and wrongful death cases, especially those that involve brain damage, heart damage, spinal cord injuries or severe burns in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Contact us at www.girardslaw.com by using the chat feature for more information.