Fred N. Bollinger D/B/A Fnb Farms; Fred N. Bollinger, Jr.; Bollinger Lone Oak, Inc.; And Bollinger Partners, Inc. v. Farm Credit Midsouth, Pca

── Fred N. Bollinger D/B/A Fnb Farms; Fred N. Bollinger, Jr.; Bollinger Lone Oak, Inc.; And Bollinger Partners, Inc. v. Farm Credit Midsouth, Pca ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: March 11, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 167 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-24-85 FRED N. BOLLINGER D/B/A FNB Opinion Delivered March 11, 2026 FARMS; FRED N. BOLLINGER, JR.; APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN BOLLINGER LONE OAK, INC.; AND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT BOLLINGER PARTNERS, INC. [NO. 18CV-09-414] APPELLANTS HONORABLE PAMELA HONEYCUTT, V. JUDGE FARM CREDIT MIDSOUTH, PCA REVERSED AND REMANDED APPELLEE BART F. VIRDEN, Judge This is the fourth appeal in this long-running case between appellants, the estate of Fred Bollinger, Sr. (Bollinger Sr.’s Estate), his son Fred Bollinger, Jr. (Bollinger Jr.), and his farming entities (collectively, the “Bollingers”); and their creditor, appellee Farm Credit Mid-America PCA, successor in interest by merger to Farm Credit Midsouth PCA (“Farm Credit”). In the current appeal, the Bollingers appeal an October 2023 order and judgment in which the circuit court vacated a prior order and awarded attorneys’ fees to Farm Credit. For reversal, the Bollingers argue that (1) the circuit court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees to Farm Credit pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-22-308 (Repl. 1999); (2) the circuit court abused its discretion by setting aside its December 2016 order on judgment; (3) the circuit court erred in failing to award Bollinger Sr.’s Estate and Bollinger Jr. reasonable attorney’s fees under section 16-22-308 given that they prevailed on a collateral claim; (4) the circuit court erred in denying Bollinger Sr.’s Estate and Bollinger Jr. prejudgment interest from February 17, 2012, on the $169,742.98 they were compelled to pay in fees and escrow; and (5) the circuit court erred in finding that Bollinger Jr., Bollinger Lone Oak, and Bollinger Partners were jointly and severally liable for Farm Credit’s attorneys’ fees that it accumulated for defending separate tort counterclaims. We reverse on the first point and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Background Facts and Procedural History This litigation has been ongoing for more than fifteen years. The background facts and procedural history are set out in detail in this court’s opinions in the previous three appeals, Farm Credit Midsouth, PCA v. Bollinger, 2018 Ark. App. 224, 548 S.W.3d 164 (“Bollinger I”), Farm Credit Midsouth, PCA v. Bollinger, 2020 Ark. App. 36, 595 S.W.3d 3 (“Bollinger II”), and Bollinger v. Farm Credit Midsouth, PCA, 2021 Ark. App. 112, 619 S.W.3d 398 (“Bollinger III”). Thus, we have included the facts only as necessary for an understanding of the issues in this appeal. Beginning in 2003, Farm Credit made a series of agricultural loans to the Bollingers, which were secured by various security agreements and mortgages. After the Bollingers defaulted on those loans, Farm Credit filed a foreclosure and replevin action in the Crittenden County Circuit Court in 2009. The Bollingers filed a counterclaim asserting multiple tort causes of action. In 2011, the circuit court granted Farm Credit’s motion for summary judgment on its complaint as to liability but withheld entry of a final 2 summary judgment until after trial of the Bollingers’ counterclaim when the value of all the claims could be determined. Several defaulted loans between the Bollingers and Farm Credit were resolved during the pendency of the circuit court case, a condition of which the Bollingers agreed to pay $119,742.98 for legal fees accrued by Farm Credit to date and also to escrow an additional $50,000.