Bcr Contractors of Arkansas, LLC, D/B/A Best Choice Roofing of Central Arkansas v. Jeffrey Hall

── Bcr Contractors of Arkansas, LLC, D/B/A Best Choice Roofing of Central Arkansas v. Jeffrey Hall ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 241 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-25-179 BCR CONTRACTORS OF ARKANSAS, Opinion Delivered April 22, 2026 LLC, D/B/A BEST CHOICE ROOFING OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH DIVISION V. [NO. 60CV-23-8121] HONORABLE TIMOTHY DAVIS FOX, JUDGE JEFFREY HALL APPELLEE AFFIRMED N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge This appeal concerns the replacement of a residential roof. BCR Contractors of Arkansas, LLC, d/b/a Best Choice Roofing of Central Arkansas (BCR) appeals the entry of judgment in favor of Jeffrey Hall in the amount of $10,722.92 plus $7,000 in attorney’s fees. BCR contends that it should have prevailed on its claim for the $6,603.97 balance owed on a roof-replacement contract, that Hall was not entitled to any relief on his counterclaim for negligence and breach of contract, and that attorney’s fees were not allowed. BCR further asserts that the circuit court committed reversible error by not issuing additional findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm. Hall’s residence sustained storm damage that supported an insurance claim to replace the roof. BCR approached Hall for the job. BCR’s roof-replacement price was $17,326.89. In January 2023, Hall and BCR entered into a written contract solely for roof replacement at the quoted price. Hall’s insurance company issued a $10,722.92 initial payment, which Hall paid to BCR. It is undisputed that BCR was not trained or certified to repair or work on Hall’s “Gutter Helmet” gutters, which are designed to allow water to drain and prevent infiltration by leaves and other obstructive material. Any gutter work done by an unapproved contractor would void Hall’s warranty on the gutter system. BCR completed its roof-replacement job over the course of a few days in February. In March, Hall received a check from his insurance company for the remaining balance, $6,603.97, but Hall did not pay BCR. In October, BCR filed a breach-of-contract action to recover the balance and alleged that Hall committed fraud. Hall denied BCR’s allegations and filed a counterclaim for the damage BCR caused to Hall’s gutter system and for poor workmanship in the roof replacement. Hall sought the cost to completely redo the roof and to properly replace the gutter system, approximately $29,000, plus attorney’s fees and costs. Hall alleged that BCR committed negligence and breach of contract. Court-ordered mediation was unsuccessful. The matter was tried to the bench. The circuit court dismissed BCR’s fraud claim.1 The trial included six witnesses and multiple exhibits for the circuit court to consider. Each side agreed they entered a roof-replacement contract at the agreed-on price, and they agreed Hall made the initial payment. The salient 1 The circuit court stated at the outset that this was a breach-of-contract lawsuit, that one side would win, and that the winner would be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees. 2 issues were as follows: Was there any breach of the contract? If so, which party was in breach, and were there any resulting damages? There was conflicting testimony about whether the roofing job was satisfactory, whether Hall informed BCR of the gutter damage, and whether BCR damaged the gutters. At trial, Hall said he told the installer about the gutter damage while the job was going on, and he tried over the summer to communicate with BCR’s owner about the problems, but he did not get