Motion Industries, Inc. v. Robert Gilbert, Individually and Doing Business as Ashdown Machine & Supply

── Motion Industries, Inc. v. Robert Gilbert, Individually and Doing Business as Ashdown Machine & Supply ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: April 08, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 216 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-25-305 MOTION INDUSTRIES, INC. Opinion Delivered April 8, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE LITTLE RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 41CV-24-74] ROBERT GILBERT INDIVIDUALLY HONORABLE BRYAN CHESSHIR, AND DOING BUSINESS AS JUDGE ASHDOWN MACHINE & SUPPLY APPELLEE REVERSED AND REMANDED RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge Motion Industries, Inc. (Motion), appeals the judgment entered against Robert Gilbert, individually and doing business as Ashdown Machine & Supply (Gilbert) by the Little River County Circuit Court. On appeal, Motion argues that the circuit court erred by refusing to award (1) prejudgment interest and (2) double damages for a returned check pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-60-103(b)(1)(A) (Repl. 2023). We agree and reverse and remand. Motion is an industrial supply distributor that sells maintenance and repair parts. On June 26, 2024, Motion filed a complaint against Gilbert alleging that on August 17, 2020, Gilbert executed an application for credit with Motion and purchased goods between August 2020 and February 2023. Gilbert owed $24,795.73 for the purchase of goods plus $35,721.91 for a check that was returned for insufficient funds. Motion further claimed that it mailed Gilbert a demand for the balance of the returned check, but Gilbert did not pay the restitution. Motion set forth claims for issuance of a check without sufficient funds pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-60-103(a), civil action for felony conduct under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-118-107(a)(1) (Repl. 2016), breach of contract, open account, and account stated. In the prayer for relief, Motion requested double the sum of the returned check as provided in Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-60-103(b)(1)(A) and for prejudgment interest at the rate of 17 percent per annum from September 21, 2022, to the date of the judgment. On August 7, Motion moved for a default judgment, alleging that it had served Gilbert on July 5, the statutory length of time for a response had elapsed, and Gilbert had not answered the complaint. On September 17, the court held a hearing. At the hearing, the court stated that it would grant the default judgment, but it declined to award prejudgment interest or double damages for the returned check. On November 5, Motion asked the court to reconsider its ruling concerning double damages and prejudgment interest. On January 31, 2025, the court entered a final judgment, and it denied Motion’s motion for reconsideration. The court found that Motion had complied with the requirements of Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-60-103 but that the statute’s double- damages provision is “directory but not mandatory,” and “an award of $35,721.91 doubled to $71,443.82 is excessive.” The court also denied Motion’s request for prejudgment interest 2 because prejudgment interest “should only be awarded when the parties have a contract and the action relates to breach of contract.” The court entered judgment for $60,517.64 to satisfy the open account, a double-damages award of $500 for the returned check under section 4-60-103(b)(1)(A), a collection charge of $30 under section 4-60-103(b)(1)(B), a $35 bank fee for the returned check under section 4-60-103(b)(1)(A), costs, attorney’s fees of $500, and postjudgment interest. On February 27, Motion appealed the judgment to this court. On appeal, Motion first argues that the circuit court erred by refusin