Ruling put off for jury option in suit

A Pulaski County Circuit Court judge on Tuesday declined to make a final ruling on whether the heirs suing over the deterioration of the Pike-Fletcher-Terry House ought to have their case heard by a jury.

Attorneys appeared before Circuit Judge Cara Connors to address a motion filed on behalf of the Arkansas Museum of Fine Arts requesting that the judge strike the plaintiffs’ request for a jury trial.

A lot of legal questions needed to be answered before the jury question, Connors said when explaining her decision to defer a ruling.

The Pike-Fletcher-Terry House is a vacant 19th-century Greek Revival mansion located on East Seventh Street in Little Rock.

Two sisters, Adolphine Fletcher Terry and Mary Fletcher Drennan, gave the property to the city of Little Rock via a 1964 deed for the use and benefit of what was then known as the Arkansas Arts Center, now called the Arkansas Museum of Fine Arts.

In 2021, six heirs of the two sisters sued the city, the museum and the museum’s foundation, seeking a return of the property and money to be used to improve the condition of the mansion as a result of the alleged breach of the conditions of the deed.

Last year, Connors granted a motion to dismiss the museum’s foundation from the lawsuit, leaving the museum and the city as defendants.

In a motion filed last August, attorneys for the Arkansas Museum of Fine Arts argued that the heirs’ request for a declaratory judgment that the title to the property revert to them was “an action at equity” for which they had no constitutional right to a jury trial.

The sole remedy provided for by the deed for a failure to meet its conditions was the reversion of the property, meaning the plaintiffs were not entitled to damages for the restoration of the mansion, the motion stated.

Richard H. Mays, an attorney for the heirs, contested those arguments in a filing shortly thereafter.

Mays, museum attorney John Tull III and Deputy City Attorney Shawn Overton delved into the matter Tuesday in Connors’ courtroom.

The judge indicated a willingness to give the plaintiffs a jury trial on the question of the alleged breach of contract, but seemed less certain about how to approach relief and damages.

At one point, Mays said that two issues could be submitted to a jury — whether there a breach and how much the defendants should be required to pay in repair costs.

Additionally, Mays argued that the reversion of the property to the heirs was a property right, not a remedy.