CONWAY LAKESIDE, LLC; And EAGLECREST RECOVERY, LLC v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS; WASHINGTON COUNTY QUORUM COURT; PATRICK DEAKINS, in His Official Capacity as Washington County Judge; Charles McKinney and Mary McKinney

── CONWAY LAKESIDE, LLC; And EAGLECREST RECOVERY, LLC v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS; WASHINGTON COUNTY QUORUM COURT; PATRICK DEAKINS, in His Official Capacity as Washington County Judge; Charles McKinney and Mary McKinney ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 246 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-25-294 CONWAY LAKESIDE, LLC; AND Opinion Delivered April 22, 2026 EAGLECREST RECOVERY, LLC APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON APPELLANTS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 72CV-23-1033] V. HONORABLE DOUG MARTIN, JUDGE WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS; WASHINGTON COUNTY QUORUM COURT; PATRICK DEAKINS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS WASHINGTON COUNTY JUDGE; CHARLES MCKINNEY AND MARY MCKINNEY APPELLEES APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED AS MOOT BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge This is a complicated case. It began as an appeal from the Washington County quorum court’s decision to deny EagleCrest Recovery, LLC and Conway Lakeside, LLC (collectively, EagleCrest) a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate a for-profit “sober living” recovery program in a single-family neighborhood zoned for residential or agricultural use. The quorum court denied the CUP by ordinance—Ordinance No. 2023- 26—the first of three we will discuss. 1 We call it the 2023 ordinance. EagleCrest appealed to circuit court under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-17-211 (Repl. 2013) and Ark. Dist. Ct. R. 9(f). Mary and Charles McKinney, siblings who own homes nearby, intervened to defend the CUP denial and enjoin EagleCrest’s operation. That demonstrated some foresight: the simple permit appeal became a two-court (now three-court) game of whack-a-mole after EagleCrest filed a federal lawsuit alleging the county’s permit decision discriminated against its clients because of disabling drug or alcohol addictions. The county folded—or tried to, at least. In April 2024, the quorum court passed Ordinance No. 2024-36, which repealed the 2023 ordinance and expressed that “pursuant to federal law, [EagleCrest] should not have been required to apply for a conditional use permit.” But the McKinneys appealed the 2024 ordinance in the same docket. On 17 December 2024, the court granted summary judgment on their motion. It concluded the 2024 ordinance was “null and void” and the 2023 ordinance was still in effect. It found EagleCrest’s continued operation violated the 2023 ordinance and Washington County Code § 1320.07. It granted a permanent injunction requiring EagleCrest to “cease operations completely on or before January 4, 2025”—the only relief that order awarded. But the federal case was still breathing. The next day, the federal district court entered an agreed preliminary injunction enjoining the county “from requiring [Eaglecrest] 1 In MMSC, LLC v. Washington County, 2026 Ark. 56, ___ S.W.3d ___, our supreme court held that a CUP decision by the same quorum court, also made by ordinance, was a quasi-judicial decision the circuit court should either have heard or reviewed de novo. 2 to have a conditional use permit” or “taking any steps to enforce any ordinance, rule, or policy that would require” it to have a CUP. The agreement was between EagleCrest and the county defendants; the McKinneys were not listed as parties. December 20, on the strength of the federal injunction, EagleCrest and the county defendants moved the circuit court to vacate or modify the December 17 order under Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60. Alternatively, they asked to stay the injunction until the federal case resolved. 2 Later that day, EagleCrest filed a notice of appeal from the December 17 order. It timely lodged the appellate record here; briefing closed in late September 2025.