in the circuit court of pulaski county, arkansas …1. “nemo dat quod non habet is a latin phrase...

of 21

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS

_____________ DIVISION

STATE OF ARKANSAS, ex rel.

LESLIE RUTLEDGE, ATTORNEY GENERAL PLAINTIFF

v. CASE NO. ________________

NEILL REED and JERIC GOODRUM DEFENDANTS

COMPLAINT

The State of Arkansas, ex rel. Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General (“the State”),

for its Complaint against Neill Reed and Jeric Goodrum states:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. “Nemo dat quod non habet is a Latin phrase that roughly translates to

mean that one can only transfer what they own.”1 No concept is more important in

real estate transactions.

2. Defendants Neill Reed and Jeric Goodrum, however, have made a

mockery of this adage. Primarily by filing fraudulent deeds, Defendants have abused

Arkansas’s tax-delinquent property sale procedures and eroded trust in the deed

recording system by filing forged deeds to steal property from rightful property

1 Donald J. Kochan, Dealing with Dirty Deeds: Matching Nemo Dat Preferences

with Property Law Pragmatism, 64 U. Kan. L. Rev. 1 (November 2015).

ELECTRONICALLY FILEDPulaski County Circuit Court

Terri Hollingsworth, Circuit/County Clerk

2019-Sep-17 10:40:1060CV-19-6678

C06D12 : 115 Pages

of 21

owners; upon occasion, sell the property to unsuspecting consumers; and disrupt the

chain of title.

3. Defendants’ actions have cost Arkansas’s taxpayers money, muddled

counties’ property records, and in some circumstances robbed decedents of property

that should have been their rightful inheritance.

4. The State brings this consumer protection action to redress and restrain

Defendants’ violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann.

§ 4-88-101 through 115 (“ADTPA”).

5. The State seeks an injunction, an order imposing civil penalties,

restitution for affected consumers, the suspension or forfeiture of franchises,

corporate charters, licenses, permits, and authorizations to do business in Arkansas,

and other relief against Defendants.

II. PARTIES

6. Plaintiff is the State of Arkansas, ex rel. Leslie Rutledge, Attorney

General. Attorney General Rutledge is the chief legal officer of the State. Pursuant

to Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-88-104 and 4-88-113, the State may seek civil enforcement of

the ADTPA.

7. Defendant Neill Reed (“Reed”) is an individual residing in Pulaski

County, Arkansas. Defendant Jeric Goodrum (“Goodrum”) is an individual residing

in Pulaski County, Arkansas.

of 21

III. JURISDICTION

8. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.

§ 4-88-104 and the common law of the State of Arkansas.

9. This Court has jurisdiction over Reed and Goodrum pursuant to Ark.

Code Ann. § 16-4-101. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, the Defendants did

business and availed themselves of the privilege of conducting activities within the

State of Arkansas. Such activities are sufficient to subject the Defendants to the

personal jurisdiction of the court.

10. Venue is proper pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-88-104, 4-88-112 and

the common law of the State of Arkansas.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

11. Deed fraud occurs when a fraudulent deed is recorded against a

property. In many cases, the deed is forged.

12. Black’s Law Dictionary defines forgery as the “act of fraudulently

making a false document or altering a real one to be used as if genuine.”2 Many

fraudulent deeds contain one or more forged details. The grantor or authorized

representative must sign all real property deeds, so a “false document” may be a

purported quitclaim deed transfer with a non-authentic signature. Alternatively, a

2 See BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 289 (2nd pocket ed. 2001).

of 21

signer may commit deed fraud by posing as the property owner and signing the deed

in front of a notary.3

The Arkansas Real Property Redemption Process

13. In Arkansas, real estate property taxes are due and payable every year

starting on March 15th and may be paid through October 15th.4 If taxes are not paid

by October 15th, then the taxes are considered delinquent.5 Such delinquencies are

publicly reported, and these public reports are the source for many scam artists’

information.

14. Once property becomes delinquent, taxpayers can redeem their property

to prevent the property from being sold at a tax auction. Taxpayers have their first

opportunity to redeem their property locally at the county collector’s office. Owners

of tax-delinquent property may redeem their property from the county collector for

one year after the property taxes are declared delinquent.6 But if the taxes are not

paid within the one-year time period, the property is certified to the Commissioner of

State Land’s Office.

15. When property is certified to the Commissioner’s Office, the

Commissioner lists the property for sale at a public auction. This auction occurs once

3 See Guide to Fighting Real Estate Deed Fraud, at https://www.deeds.com/deed-

fraud/.

4 Ark. Code Ann. § 26-36-201(a) (2017).

5 Id.

6 Ark. Code Ann. § 26-37-101 (2017).

https://www.deeds.com/deed-fraud/

https://www.deeds.com/deed-fraud/

of 21

a year.7 As the Commissioner readies the property to be sold, the owner of the tax-

delinquent property, an heir, or assignee of the property may redeem the land prior

to the subject property’s public auction.8 But, once the property has been certified to

the Commissioner’s office, the titleholder must file a petition to redeem their property

along with the delinquent amount of taxes due.

16. In conjunction with the petition to redeem property, the owner may

need to furnish documents establishing one’s interest in the property, such as a

warranty deed or even a quitclaim deed. As long as the instrument is recorded and

facially valid, the Commissioner of State Lands will generally accept the document

as valid.

17. Titleholders may have one more opportunity to redeem the property

after the public auction takes place. Barring a few exceptions, the titleholder may

redeem their property within ten (10) days after the property’s sale at auction.9 Thus,

in most circumstances, titleholders have two years to redeem their property because

there is a strong public policy against dispossessing citizens of their real estate while

recognizing the importance of paying property taxes, as property taxes fuel local

governments and provide communities with services.

18. However, some unscrupulous people have learned how they can take

advantage of the delinquent property tax scheme.

7 See Frequently Asked Questions, available at http://www.cosl.org/index.html#faq.

8 Id.

9 Id.

http://www.cosl.org/index.html#faq

of 21

19. Defendants, through a system of deceit and fraud, have exploited how

the tax delinquency and redemption process works to deprive property owners of the

opportunity to redeem their property; to steal money from unsuspecting and

unsophisticated purchasers, and to cloud title records in one fell swoop.

How Defendants’ Redemption Scam Works

20. The Defendants begin the scam by locating publicly-listed tax-

delinquent properties that are soon to be auctioned by the Commissioner of State

Lands.

21. Once Defendants locate the particular tax-delinquent piece of property

they want to target, they typically forge a quitclaim deed that indicates that the

record owner of the property quitclaimed their interests to Defendants unbeknownst

to the true owners. Defendants then record the forged document in a county’s

property records. Unless county officials have personal knowledge of the parties

involved, the officials have no way of proving that the document presented is forged

as long as the document is facially valid and free of defects. Thus, the forged

document becomes a part of the county’s property records.

22. Defendants then sell the stolen property for a price that may be

thousands of dollars below what the property’s true appraisal to unsuspecting and

unsophisticated third parties.

23. There is some variation to the methods that Defendants utilize, but

generally, they fall into three categories: (1) Defendants file fraudulent deeds that

are notarized by a dead person; (2) Defendants file fraudulent deeds that are signed

of 21

by dead record title owners; (3) Defendants file fraudulent deeds that unnecessarily

cloud a property’s chain of title. Transactions falling into those are discussed below.

A. Deeds Evidencing Fraud – Defendants Used the Signature and Stamp of a

Deceased Notary Public

24. “A notary public acts as an official and unbiased witness to the identity

of a person who appears before the notary.”10 The identity of the person appearing

before the notary is critical to the notary process. “The notary must be certain that

the person appearing before him/her is who that person claims to be.”11 Hence,

“[p]ersonal appearance before the notary is required.”12

25. On August 25, 2010, Alfred Bauldwin applied to become a notary

public.13 He received approval to become a notary; however, he failed to register his

notary oath.14 Bauldwin’s notary commission expires on August 25, 2020.

26. On June 30, 2015, Alfred Bauldwin died.15

10 See Arkansas Notary Public and eNotary Handbook, available at

https://www.sos.arkansas.gov/uploads/bcs/NotaryHandbook.pdf

11 Id.

12 Id.

13 See Exhibit 1, Notary Record of Alfred Bauldwin.

14 Id.

15 See Exhibit 2, Alfred Bauldwin Obituary.

https://www.sos.arkansas.gov/uploads/bcs/NotaryHandbook.pdf

of 21

27. Despite Bauldwin’s death, Defendants obtained Bauldwin’s notary seal

and utilized Bauldwin’s signature stamp to notarize deeds fraudulently.16

a. Property Located in Franklin County, AR17

28. In 1993, Vivian Spencer transferred title to property in Franklin

County, Arkansas to her daughter, Brenda S. McNeill.18

29. On or about July 1, 2013, the property was certified as delinquent to the

Commissioner of State Lands for nonpayment of property taxes.19

30. On September 23, 2015, Defendant Reed and Defendant Goodrum filed

a forged quitclaim deed in the Franklin County property records.20 The quitclaim

deed purported to transfer Ms. McNeill’s title to Defendants Reed and Goodrum. The

quitclaim deed was notarized by Alfred Bauldwin on September 21, 2015 almost three

months after his death.21

16 See Exhibits 5, 9, 13, 16, and 27, Forged Quitclaim Deeds Notarized by Alfred

Bauldwin and filed by Defendants.

17 The subject property does not have a specific address. The legal description of the

property is as follows: “The Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and the

South half of the Southeast Quarter of Section 29, Township 9 North, Range 20

West, and containing in all 120 acres, more or less, including all mineral rights

pertaining thereunto.”

18 See Exhibit 3, p. 2, Franklin County Property Owner Report.

19 See Exhibit 4, p. 2, Forfeited Real Property for Franklin County, Arkansas (July

1, 2013).

20 See Exhibit 5, Quitclaim Deed from Grantor McNeill to Grantee Defendants.

21 Id.

of 21

31. The Commissioner of State Lands issued a redemption deed to Ms.

McNeill on or about October 2, 2015.22

32. Upon discovering that Defendants filed a forged deed purporting to

dispossess Ms. McNeill of her property, she filed a quiet title action to remove the

cloud on her title to the property. Ms. McNeill also sued Reed and Goodrum

personally, and she obtained a $1,914.36 judgment that the Defendants have yet to

pay.23

b. 523 Pollock Street, Little Rock, AR

33. As another example, Horatius and Gloria Williams owned property

located at 523 Pollock Street in North Little Rock, Arkansas.24 The property was

certified to the Commissioner’s Office and sold at a public auction on or about April

11, 2017.

34. However, only a few days after the auction, Defendants filed a quitclaim

deed purporting to transfer property from Horatius and Gloria Williams to

themselves on April 7, 2017.25

22 See Exhibit 6, Redemption Deed filed by Brenda McNeil for Property Located in

Franklin County, AR.

23 See Exhibit 7, McNeil v. Neill Reed and Jeric Goodrum, No. 24CV-16-24

(Charleston Dist. Aug. 24, 2016).

24 See Exhibit 8, Parcel History Report for Property Located at 523 Pollock Street,

North Little Rock, AR.

25 See Exhibit 9, Quitclaim Deed from Grantor Horatius and Gloria Williams to

Grantee Defendants.

of 21

35. Based on the quitclaim deed that Defendants filed, the Commissioner of

State Lands issued a redemption deed to Defendants on April 21, 2017.26 Defendants

recorded the redemption deed on April 28, 2017.27 This redemption caused the buyers

at the auction to lose out on the sale.

36. After receiving information disproving that Defendants received the

property through a quitclaim, the Commissioner issued a cancellation deed that

reversed Defendants’ redemption deed on May 19, 2017.28

37. The State has evidence of six other deeds filed by Defendants in like

manner and that were notarized by a deceased Alfred Bauldwin. The State maintains

that these deeds should be invalidated due to Defendants’ fraudulent activities.

B. Deeds Evidencing Fraud – Defendants Forged Deeds from Deceased Title

Owners

38. Defendants’ exploitative actions also extend to filing fraudulent deeds

evidencing a property transfer from deceased persons.

c. 10620 Legion Hut Road, Mablevale, AR

39. In 2014, Louis Depriest purchased property located at 10620 Legion Hut

Road in Mabelvale, Arkansas. Mr. Depriest died on May 15, 2015.29

26 See Exhibit 10, Redemption Deed Filed by Defendants for Property Located at

523 Pollack Street, North Little Rock, AR.

27 Id.

28 See Exhibit 11, Cancellation Deed Cancelling Redemption Deed Filed by

Defendants for Property Located at 523 Pollack Street, North Little Rock, AR.

29 See Exhibit 12, Louis J. Depriest Obituary.

of 21

40. After Mr. Depriest passed away, the subject property was certified to the

Commissioner of State Lands’ office around February 2018 for nonpayment of

property taxes.

41. Prior to the property being sold at auction, however, Mr. Depriest,

despite his death, quitclaimed his property to Neill Reed and Jeric Goodrum for the

price of $75.00, as evidenced by a deed that Defendants filed on February 19, 2019.30

42. Shortly after Mr. Depriest quitclaimed the property to Defendants,

Defendants sold the property to other consumers for $7,500.00 at a net profit of

$7,425.00.31

d. 4400 Augusta St., North Little Rock, AR

43. Since 2004, Dale Scates owned the property located at 4400 Augusta

Street in North Little Rock, AR.

44. Mr. Scates died on August 15, 2013.32 He left behind adult children and

a life companion,33 with whom he jointly owned several properties.

45. The subject property was certified as delinquent to the Commissioner of

State Land’s Office in 2011. The property did not sell at auction and remained on the

Commissioner’s books until 2015.

30 See Exhibit 13, Quitclaim Deed from Grantor Depriest to Grantee Defendants.

31 See Exhibit 14, Pulaski County Property Records for 10620 Legion Hut Rd., p. 2.

32 See Exhibit 15, H. Dale Scates Obituary.

33 Id.

of 21

46. On or about August 17, 2015, Defendants filed a quitclaim deed that

transferred the property from Mr. Scates to Defendants.34 This transfer took place

two years after Mr. Scates death. This same quitclaim deed was notarized by the

deceased Alfred Bauldwin.35

47. Defendants promptly transferred the property to another interested

party to transfer to the property in Nathan Harris, a person listed at the same

address as Defendants.36

48. Dale Scates’ family started probating Mr. Scates’ estate on or about May

17, 2015. On March 15, 2016, the attorney representing Mr. Scates’ estate filed an

accounting of the assets to Mr. Scates’ estate.37 However, the subject property was

not listed in the final accounting of Mr. Scates’ estate.38

49. The State has evidence of several other transactions where Defendants

filed forged quitclaim deeds well after the grantor died. The State has reason to

believe that more evidence of this will surface during the discovery process.

C. Fraud – The Unnecessary Title Cloud

34 See Exhibit 16, Quitclaim Deed from Grantor Scates to Grantee Defendants.

35 Id.

36 See Exhibit 17, p. 2, Quitclaim Deed from Grantor Defendants to Grantee Nathan

Harris.

37 See Exhibit 18, Inventory, Accounting and Petition for Discharge of H. Dale

Scates Estate, In the Matter of H. Dale Scates, 60PR 2015-866.

38 Id.

of 21

50. Finally, Defendants file quitclaim deeds that cloud the chain of title to

property, costing all other parties involved money to combat Defendants’ fraud.

e. 1214 and 1216 Frank St., North Little Rock, AR

51. For example, John Alexander owned property located at 1214 and 1216

Frank Street in North Little Rock, Arkansas on or about February 2012.

52. On December 3, 2015, the subject property was certified as delinquent

to the Commissioner of State Lands for nonpayment of property taxes.39

53. On the same day, Defendants Reed and Goodrum filed a quitclaim deed

with the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk’s office purporting to transfer the property

from Alexander to Defendants.40

54. Shortly after filing the quitclaim deed, Defendants sold the property for

$2,000.00 to Augustin Enamorado, on January 5, 2016.41 Defendants did not inform

Mr. Enamorado, however, that the property taxes had not been paid for five years.

Defendants never attempted to either purchase the property at the tax auction or

redeem the property once they filed the quitclaim deed in December of 2015. Instead,

Defendants opted to “take the money and run.”

39 See Exhibit 19, Forfeited Real Property for Pulaski County, p. 2 (December 17,

2013).

40 See Exhibit 20, Quitclaim Deed from Grantor John Alexander to Grantee

Defendants.

41 See Exhibit 21, p. 1, Consumer Complaint of Augustin Enamorado.

of 21

55. Mr. Enamorado wanted to pay the property taxes and contacted the

Pulaski County Circuit Clerk’s Office to determine how much he owed in property

taxes.42 Instead of hearing the amount that he owed, the Clerk’s Office told him that

the property now belonged to Ault Investment Properties.

56. Because the property taxes had not been paid for five years, the property

had been auctioned on or about May 2, 2016. At the auction, Ault Investment

Properties of Salt Lake City, Utah purchased the property for $4,000.00.43

57. Mr. Enamorado hired an attorney to assist him and began negotiating

with Ault Investment Properties to straighten out his purchase in the wake of

Defendants’ actions.44

58. Mr. Enamorado and Ault Investment Properties agreed to reverse Ault’s

purchase. The State refunded Ault the $4,000.00 paid for the property at the auction.

Mr. Enamorado also paid Ault $2,000.00 for their expenditures associated with

locating and purchasing the property at the auction.

59. Defendants’ acts in this regard created unnecessary confusion in the

auction and redemption process such that Mr. Enamorado unnecessarily incurred

expense to remedy the havoc wrought by Defendants’ forged quitclaim deed. In total,

42 Id.

43 See Exhibit 22, Property Record for 1216 Frank Street, Little Rock, AR.

44 See Exhibit 21, p. 4, Consumer Complaint of Augustin Enamorado.

of 21

Mr. Enamorado paid an additional $3,700.00 to clean up the mess caused by

Defendants’ deception.

f. 6824 Fairfield Dr., Little Rock, AR

60. In another case, Sheilar Wofford purchased property located at 6824

Fairfield Drive in Little Rock, Arkansas for $55,000 in 2005.45 After living in the

house for a number of years, Ms. Wofford’s daughter moved into the house on the

property.

61. On or about August 20, 2015, the subject property was certified to be

sold at auction by the Commissioner of State Lands due to delinquent real estate

taxes.46

62. According to the notice, the public auction was to take place on April 12,

2016.47

63. Prior to the public auction taking place, Ms. Wofford paid the delinquent

real estate taxes in the amount of $743.92. She also filed a Petition to Redeem the

property.48

45 See Exhibit 23, p. 2, Consumer Complaint of Sheilar Wofford.

46 See Exhibit 24, Notice of Certification to Commissioner of State Land’s Office for

Property Located at 6824 Fairfield Drive, Little Rock, AR.

47 Id.

48 See Exhibit 25, Petition to Redeem for Property Located at 6824 Fairfield Drive,

Little Rock, AR.

of 21

64. The Commissioner of State Lands issued a redemption deed to the

subject property on January 7, 2016 in favor of Ms. Wofford.49

65. Upon inquiring at the Pulaski County Circuit Clerk’s office, however,

Ms. Wofford discovered that Defendants quietly filed a quitclaim deed that on the

deed’s face purported to transfer title from Ms. Wofford to a “Dawn Sims” on July

2015.50 The deed was again notarized by the deceased Alfred Bauldwin.51 The

Defendants unlawfully recorded the deed on August 13, 2015.52

66. A mere fifteen days later, “Dawn Sims” transferred the property to

Defendants on August 28, 2015.53 Defendants purchased the property from “Dawn

Sims” for a bargain price of $300.00.

67. On or about February 4, 2016, Defendants quitclaimed Ms. Wofford’s

property to Mr. Ignacio Alvarez for $10,000.00.54

49 See Exhibit 26, Redemption Deed for Property Located at 6824 Fairfield Drive,

Little Rock, AR.

50 See Exhibit 27, Quitclaim Deed from Grantor Sheilar Clark to Grantee Dawn

Sims.

51 Id.

52 Id.

53 See Exhibit 28, Quitclaim Deed from Grantor Dawn Sims to Grantee Defendants.

54 See Exhibit 29, Quitclaim Deed from Grantor Defendants to Grantee Ignacio

Alvarez.

of 21

68. Mr. Alvarez and his family began to make alterations to Ms. Wofford’s

home, as the Alvarez family believed that they were the rightful owners. Much to

their surprise, they were not.

69. On July 30, 2016, Ms. Wofford filed suit against Defendants, the Alvarez

family, “Dawn Sims,” and a host of other unknown people in order to clear the title to

her property.55 Defendants failed to answer Ms. Wofford’s Complaint.

70. After filing suit on July 30, 2016, Ms. Wofford obtained a default

judgment in her favor on October 16, 2017.56 The Court awarded Ms. Wofford

damages, fees, and costs in the amount of $13,727.00. Eventually, Ms. Wofford

entered a Satisfaction of Judgment with the Court on June 26, 2019, evidence that

the amount Defendants owed was paid.57

71. It took over three years for Mr. Wofford to clear the title to her property

– something that she should never have had to do – because of Defendants’ actions.

72. Defendants’ practices leave a trail of victims in their wake. First and

foremost, Defendants have filed and seem to continue to file fraudulent deeds in the

property records of counties around Arkansas and continue to take advantage of the

State’s delinquent tax procedures. This practice wreaks havoc on the deed-recording

system in Arkansas and costs taxpayers unnecessary money. Defendants’ practices

55 See Generally Exhibit 30. Wofford v. Reed and Goodrum, No. 60CV-16-4210

(Pulaski Co. 12th Division June 30, 2016).

56 Id., at pp. 28-30.

57 Id., at pp. 31-32.

of 21

also create headaches for record titleholders, property investors, and innocent third

party purchasers.

73. Defendants’ actions take advantage of unsophisticated persons unaware

of the property laws in Arkansas. As previous allegations reflect, the persons who

purchased properties from Defendants seemed to be unaware that at best, they were

either purchasing what purported to be a quitclaim deed or a tax deed, not a general

warranty deed. Additionally, Defendants actions have in some cases hampered

decedents’ efforts to probate their loved ones’ estates.

74. Defendants’ actions are so outrageous that the ramifications of their

actions may not yet be observed for years to come. The State believes that even more

amoral real estate dealings will be uncovered as the discovery process commences.

VIOLATIONS OF LAW

75. The Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“ADTPA”) sets forth the

State’s statutory program prohibiting deceptive and unconscionable trade practices.58

76. It is a violation of the ADTPA to engage in unconscionable, false, or

deceptive acts or practices in business, commerce, or trade.59 An “unconscionable act”

is one that “affronts the sense of justice, decency, or reasonableness, including acts

that violate public policy or a statute.” Pfizer, Inc., 534 F.Supp.2d at 886 (E.D. Ark.

2008) (citing Baptist Health v. Murphy, 365 Ark. 115, 226 S.W.3d 800, 811 (2006)).

58 Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-88-101, et seq.

59 Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-107(a)(10).

of 21

77. Defendants’ practices fall under the purview of the ADTPA because the

actions affect commerce or trade. As previously discussed, Defendants habitually

filed fraudulent quitclaim deeds or took other actions that clouded the chain of title

to property. In other circumstances, Defendants sold the properties to which they

had no legal rights.

78. Arkansas Code Annotated § 4-88-107(a)(10) provides that it shall be

unlawful to engage in unconscionable, false, or deceptive acts or practices in business,

commerce, or trade. The Defendants have engaged in prohibited conduct by

knowingly:

a. filing quitclaim deeds where the notary public attesting to the

signatures has passed away;

b. filing quitclaim deeds where the title owner has passed away;

c. forcing true title owners to file quiet title actions in order to remove the

cloud over the title owner’s property;

d. selling property to unsuspecting consumers while knowing that the

chain of title to the property was not clear, due to their actions.

Prayer for Relief

79. The Attorney General may bring a civil action to seek to prevent persons

from engaging in the use or employment of prohibited practices.60

60 Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113(a)(1).

of 21

80. Likewise, the Attorney General may bring a civil action to seek to

restore to any purchaser who has suffered any ascertainable loss by reason of the use

or employment of the prohibited practices any moneys or real or personal property

which may have been acquired by means of any practices declared to be unlawful,

together with other damages sustained.61

81. The Attorney General may seek an injunction prohibiting any person

from engaging in any deceptive or unlawful practice.62

82. Any person who violates the provisions of the ADTPA may be assessed

a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation.63

83. In addition, any person who violates the provisions of the Arkansas

Deceptive Trade Practices Act shall be liable to the Office of the Attorney General for

all costs and fees, including but not limited to, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees,

incurred by the Office of the Attorney General in the prosecution of such actions.64

84. A “person” is an individual, organization, group, association,

partnership, corporation, or any combination thereof.65

85. The State demands a trial by jury.

61 Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113(a)(2)(A).

62 Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-88-104 and 4-88-113(a)(1).

63 Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113(a)(3).

64 Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113(e).

65 Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-102(5).

of 21

WHEREFORE, the above premises considered, the State of Arkansas, ex rel.

Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, respectfully requests that this Court:

a. Issue such orders, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-88-104 and 4-88-

113(a)(1), as may be necessary to prevent the use or employment by the

Defendants of the practices described herein which are violations of the

Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act;

b. Impose civil penalties pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113(b), to be

paid to the State by the Defendants in the amount of $10,000.00 for each

violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act proved at a trial

of this matter;

c. Issue an order, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113(e), requiring

Defendants to pay the State’s costs in this investigation and litigation,

including, but not limited to, attorneys’ fees and costs; and

d. For all other just and proper relief to which the State may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

LESLIE RUTLEDGE

ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: _/s/ Johnathan R. Carter

Johnathan R. Carter, Ark. Bar No. 2007015

Assistant Attorney General

Arkansas Attorney General's Office

323 Center Street, Suite 200

Little Rock, AR 72201

(501) 682-8063

[email protected]

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT 6

EXHIBIT 8

EXHIBIT 9

EXHIBIT 10

EXHIBIT 11

EXHIBIT 12

EXHIBIT 15

EXHIBIT 16

EXHIBIT 20

EXHIBIT 22

EXHIBIT 24

EXHIBIT 25

EXHIBIT 26

EXHIBIT 27

EXHIBIT 28

in the circuit court of pulaski county, arkansas …1. “nemo dat quod non habet is a latin phrase...

Documents