Relyance Bank, N.A. v. Steve Pharr and Simmons Bank

── Relyance Bank, N.A. v. Steve Pharr and Simmons Bank ── Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas Date: March 19, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. 55 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-23-8 Opinion Delivered: March 19, 2026 RELYANCE BANK, N.A. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 40CV-20-44] V. HONORABLE ROBERT H. WYATT, JR., JUDGE STEVE PHARR AND SIMMONS BANK AFFIRMED; COURT OF APPEALS’ APPELLEES OPINION VACATED. RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice Relyance Bank’s agent told a title company that Relyance would release its mortgage on certain real property. As a result, Simmons Bank loaned Steve Pharr the money to buy the apparently unencumbered property. Years later, Relyance sued and tried to enforce its lien against Simmons Bank and Pharr. On summary judgment, the circuit court dismissed Relyance’s lawsuit based on equitable estoppel. We affirm because no disputed material facts exist and because the court correctly applied estoppel to bar Relyance’s claim. I. Facts and Procedural History In January 2015, Wayne Caldwell and Patricia Thompson (“Caldwell”)1 borrowed $1.9 million from Relyance Bank. In exchange, they executed a mortgage on 757 acres of real property. About a year later, Caldwell sold 220 acres of the property to Steve Pharr for 1 We refer solely to Caldwell throughout as Relyance later entered into an agreement with Patricia Thompson and voluntarily dismissed her from the lawsuit. around $760,000. Pharr borrowed the purchase money from Simmons Bank and executed a mortgage giving it a lien on the acreage. During the closing process for this transaction, Vince Stone, a Relyance vice president and agricultural loan officer, told the title company that Relyance would release its mortgage. Thus, the title company cut a check for the proceeds to Caldwell and then Stone’s executive assistant deposited the proceeds from the sale into Caldwell’s business account at Relyance. Relyance and Caldwell did not use the funds for payment towards the mortgage. At the time of the deposit, the account was overdrawn by approximately $157,000. A month before, the account had been overdrawn by over $325,000. Caldwell’s deposit produced a positive account balance of approximately $385,000. Caldwell had discussed his lack of operating funds with Stone, and together they discussed selling some property to give Caldwell liquidity. In March 2020, almost five years after the initial mortgage, Relyance sued Caldwell. Relyance brought additional claims for receivership, breach of contract, conversion, deceit, and unjust enrichment. Relyance also sued Pharr and Simmons Bank, arguing that its lien was superior to either of their interests. Caldwell filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy that same month, prompting the automatic stay of any claims against him. The bankruptcy court then granted relief from stay only to the extent Relyance could pursue “in rem relief and relief for the causes of action based on contract, specifically not to include any intentional or unintentional tort actions.” This allowed Relyance to pursue its state-court foreclosure and breach-of-contract action based on Caldwell’s default on the loan. But the stay remained in place for the tort claims. 2 Relyance later received a default judgment against Caldwell, noting this was limited to the breach-of-contract claim. The state-court lawsuit continued between Relyance, Simmons Bank, and Pharr. Simmons Bank and Pharr filed motions for summary judgment arguing that Relyance’s claim of lien priority was barred under the doctrine of estoppel beca