Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—Ark. Sup. Ct.: DTPA did not apply to farm-related activities, (Oct 29, 2013)

By Jody Coultas, J.D.

The Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) did not apply to a dispute between land owners because the claims were based on farming activity rather than a consumer-oriented act, the Arkansas Supreme Court has held (Skalla v. Canepari, October 24, 2013, Laser, D.).

Virginia McCreary Skalla, Albert McCreary, and Charles McCreary each owned an undivided one-third interest in two tracts of farmland. Albert allegedly told Skalla that she had a right of first refusal for his interest in the two farms, but this agreement was never reduced to writing. After some of the land fell into disrepair, Charles hired a farmer to manage the land pursuant to a written farm-management agreement.

Joseph F. Canepari contracted to purchase Albert’s one-third interest in the land. Canepari wrote a letter stating that he had no interest in being partners with other owners, that he was prepared to challenge the validity of the management agreement and leases, and that he was interested in farming the property himself. After Canepari purchased Charles’s one-third interest, his counsel received a letter from Skalla’s counsel, stating that Canepari prevented the McCrearys from entering into seven-year-renewal leases with the farm’s tenants and that Canepari forced Charles to sell his land.

Contrary to Skalla’s claim, the DTPA was not applicable to the case, according to the court. It provides a private right of action to any person who suffers actual damage or injury as a result of a violation of the statute. The DTPA prohibits knowingly making a false representation as to the sponsorship of goods or services and includes a catchall provision prohibiting “any other unconscionable, false, or deceptive act or practice in business, commerce, or trade.”

To state a DTPA claim, a plaintiff must show a deceptive consumer-oriented act or practice that was misleading in a material respect and injury resulting from such act. Skalla’s claim failed to assert that Canepari engaged in any type of consumer-oriented act or practice that caused damages. His business practices involved farming rather than consumer-oriented acts.

The case is No. CV-12-1065.

Attorneys: Robert J. Donovan (Daggett, Donovan & Perry, PLLC) for Virginia McCreary Skalla. Jason W. Early (Chisenhall, Nestrud & Julian, P.A.) for Joseph F. Canepari.

Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices ArkansasNews