Clyde Hatchett, Sr.; And Violentee Hatchett v. Hatchett Bullock Cemetery Association, Inc.

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 357
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CV-24-101

CLYDE HATCHETT, SR.; AND Opinion Delivered June 4, 2025
VIOLENTEE HATCHETT
APPELLANTS APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
SIXTEENTH DIVISION
V.
[NO. 60CV-23-6987]

HATCHETT BULLOCK CEMETERY HONORABLE MORGAN E. WELCH,
ASSOCIATION, INC. JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

Clyde and Violentee Hatchett (the Hatchetts) appeal the Pulaski County Circuit

Court’s decision granting permanent injunctive relief to the Hatchett Bullock Cemetery

Association, Incorporated (the Association). We affirm.

I. Relevant Facts

On September 18, 2023, the Association filed a petition for an emergency restraining

order, injunction, and to set aside the Hatchetts’ quitclaim deed regarding property on which

the Hatchett-Bullock Family cemetery is located. The Association explained that in 1966, the

Hatchett-Bullock Family (HBF) was awarded a permit to establish a cemetery on a parcel of

land located in Maumelle, and since then, the HBF has maintained the land and operated

the cemetery for the exclusive use by the HBF. In 2009, the Hatchett Bullock Cemetery
Association was incorporated after the last of the original permit holders died. The

Association named April Harris as the director/president, Asia Owens as the

secretary/director/principal, and Patricia Hughes as the vice president/director. The

Association explained that the officers are authorized to act on behalf of the Association,

and they had never conveyed the property to anyone. In 2021, the Association learned that

the Hatchetts secretly signed a quitclaim deed purporting to transfer the property from

themselves as grantors to themselves as grantees. In the deed, the Hatchetts falsely stated that

Clyde was the president of the Association; however, the Association contended that the

Hatchetts are not members of the Association authorized to act on its behalf and have no

ownership interest in the property. Clyde also executed and filed a tax-compliance form in

which he purported to be the “Grantor/President of ‘Hatchett Bullock Cemetery[.]’” The

Association asserted that the Hatchetts had sold gravesites to third parties not associated

with the HBF. The Association requested a temporary restraining order against the Hatchetts

enjoining them from selling gravesites, accessing the property, holding themselves out as

owners, allowing nonfamily members to be buried in the cemetery, and taking any action

that adversely affects the Association. The Association also requested a preliminary

injunction addressing the same issues should the temporary restraining order expire. The

Association requested a permanent injunction as well, alleging that the Hatchetts’ actions

irreparably harmed the members of the Association. The Association asked the court to set

aside the Hatchetts’ quitclaim deed because it was fraudulently executed and clouded the

title.

2
On September 19, the court issued an emergency temporary restraining order and set

a hearing for September 27. At the hearing, April Harris testified that she is the president of

the Association, a nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to maintain a private cemetery

for the descendants of the HBF. She explained that the cemetery is not meant to be a public

cemetery, and the rules for operation adopted in 2009 provide that membership fees from

those with burial rights pay for the cemetery’s upkeep. Harris testified that Doc Hatchett had

the deed to the property, and when he died in 2009, the deed passed to his heirs. His heirs

formed the Association and were in the process of transferring the warranty deed to the

corporation when the deed was destroyed in a house fire. Harris testified that there was no

deed bearing the name “Hatchett-Bullock Cemetery Association, Inc.”; however, the title

company acknowledged that it was destroyed in a fire. She testified that the Hatchetts had

never been members of the Association and had never paid dues. Harris stated that in 2021

and 2022, the Hatchetts vandalized the cemetery signs, blacking out the phone numbers of

the Association’s officers and cutting the lock on the gate. The police reports regarding the

incidents and surveillance video of Clyde’s activities at the cemetery gates were introduced

into evidence. Harris recalled that in September 2021, Clyde called a meeting regarding the

administration of the cemetery. She testified that the meeting did not involve the Association

or any of its members and was not a legitimate meeting. Despite not having authority to

complete any documents related to the Association, Clyde filed an annual report in 2023

listing himself as the president and his immediate family as other officeholders. Also in 2023,

3
the Hatchetts facilitated unauthorized nonfamily burials in the cemetery, and the buyers of

the gravesites told her that they had paid Clyde for the gravesites.

Clyde Hatchett testified that he executed the quitclaim deed but that he was not

knowledgeable about the law, and at the time, he thought he was doing the right thing. He

acknowledged that he had no right to execute the quitclaim deed, and there was no

consideration for the transaction. He testified that he had been elected president by the

Hatchett family; however, there was no actual entity that he was the president of. He

explained that he attached signs bearing his contact information to the cemetery gates so

that people interested in a gravesite could contact him and the Hatchett officers. He

acknowledged that the original signs listing the Association’s officers’ phone numbers were

on the gates when he put up his signs and explained that he wanted to return to the way the

cemetery was administered before, when gravesites cost $250 instead of $1200. He explained

that he was taken off the board by his cousin Joe Hughes, and “[he] didn’t want to accept

it.” Clyde denied that he had ever accepted money from anyone interested in a gravesite.

Violentee testified that she and Clyde were not aware of the incorporation of the

cemetery until around 2014. Violentee explained that the Association did not get permission

from the family to incorporate. Violentee produced minutes from the September 2021

meeting Clyde called showing that the Hatchett branch of the family established the

cemetery’s bylaws

Larry Hatchett, Clyde’s brother, testified that Clyde was the president of the Hatchett-

Bullock Cemetery because he, his cousins, and his children voted for Clyde. The purpose of

4
the September 2021 meeting at which Clyde was elected president was to return the

administration of the cemetery to the way it was before 2009.

From the bench, the circuit court found that there was no testimony that “anybody’s

made off with a bundle of cash,” and everyone testified that the cemetery is not for profit.

The court determined that the Hatchetts knew that the Association has had dominion and

control over the cemetery since 2009, and in 2021, the Hatchetts took steps to establish a

competing organization “and then went so far as to file documents which, instead of

competing, seem to list the Defendant Hatchett as the president of the selfsame entity that’s

suing him.”

The circuit court entered the written order granting the Association a permanent

injunction on October 18. The court found that the Hatchetts’ quitclaim deed is void on its

face for lack of consideration and because the Hatchetts did not have an interest in the land

on which the cemetery is located that could be deeded. The court determined that

irreparable harm would occur if the permanent injunction was not issued and enjoined the

Hatchetts from holding themselves out as third parties or owners of the cemetery. The

Hatchetts were further enjoined from marketing gravesites to nonfamily members and from

burying nonfamily members in the cemetery. The Hatchetts were restrained from entering

the Hatchett Bullock Cemetery without permission from the Association.

The Hatchetts timely filed their notice of appeal, and this appeal followed.

II. Discussion

5
For their first point on appeal, the Hatchetts contend that the Association does not

own the cemetery, and there is no charter conveying ownership of the cemetery to the

Association. This issue is not preserved for appeal.

The issue the circuit court addressed and ruled on is whether the Hatchetts should

be enjoined from making decisions about the administration of the cemetery and entering

the cemetery. Ownership of the cemetery property was never determined; thus, we are unable

to consider the Hatchetts’ argument because we do not address arguments or theories on

which the circuit court has not ruled. See Parker v. Parker, 75 Ark. App. 90, 101, 55 S.W.3d

773, 781 (2001); Presley v. Presley, 66 Ark. App. 316, 989 S.W.2d 938 (1999).

For their second point on appeal, the Hatchetts argue that the Association had no

legal rights regarding the cemetery, and thus, that they are not entitled to a permanent

injunction. They contend that without an interest in the cemetery, the Association could

not suffer harm from the Hatchetts’ access to and administration of the cemetery. The

Hatchetts explain that “merely incorporating an association does not automatically transfer

any property interest it may have to the new entity,” and it is not known who owns the

property.

The Hatchetts’ second point on appeal is not preserved because it is based on a

challenge to the ownership of the property. As stated above, the circuit court did not

determine ownership of the property, and we do not address issues the circuit court did not

rule on. See Parker, supra.

6
For their third point on appeal, the Hatchetts assert that the court “seemed to think

it was significant that the plaintiff corporation association claimed to have administered the

property since 2009.” To counter this perceived inference, the Hatchetts assert that Clyde

possessed a key before 2009, and it was functional until 2021 when a new lock was installed.

They contend that “adverse possession principles do not apply to the facts of this case.”

Again, the issue the Hatchetts raise is not preserved for our review. The circuit court

did not rule that the property was adversely possessed; thus, we are barred from reaching this

issue on appeal. See Id. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

BARRETT and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, LLP by: Troy A. Price and Antwan D. Phillips, for appellants.

Brett D. Watson, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brett D. Watson; and Campbell, Grooms &

Spaulding, PLLC, by: Parker Spaulding, for appellee.

7