Ron Johnson D/B/A Ron Johnson & Sons, Inc. v. Kris L. Spangler; Tina Marie Spangler; And McGowan Built Properties, LLC

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 301
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CV-25-279

RON JOHNSON D/B/A RON Opinion Delivered May 13, 2026

JOHNSON & SONS, INC.
APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
APPELLANT
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 04CV-24-1947]
V.
HONORABLE CHRISTINE
KRIS L. SPANGLER; TINA MARIE HORWART, JUDGE
SPANGLER; AND MCGOWAN BUILT
PROPERTIES, LLC
REVERSED AND REMANDED IN
APPELLEES
PART; AFFIRMED IN PART;
REVERSED IN PART

STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge

Ron Johnson d/b/a Ron Johnson & Sons, Inc. (“Johnson”), appeals the Benton

County Circuit Court’s December 2, 2024 order dismissing his complaint with prejudice

and discharging his lien as well as the January 28, 2025 order denying his motion for

reconsideration and granting the motions for attorney’s fees filed by the appellees, Kris L.

Spangler and Tina Marie Spangler (“Spangler”) and McGowan Built Properties, LLC

(“McGowan”). We reverse and remand the dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim, affirm

discharge of the lien, and reverse the award of attorney’s fees.

Spangler owns property located at 11261 Stillhouse Springs Drive, Bentonville,

Benton County, Arkansas. In 2023, Dakota Riggan, a McGowan employee, contacted
Johnson via text message to request a quote to construct a Romanstone block wall at the

property as part of the construction of a residence for Spangler.

Johnson claims that on March 27, 2023, he contracted with McGowan to construct

the wall for $5,600. Johnson completed the construction of the wall on or before March 29,

2023. After completion, Spangler and McGowan asserted that the wall was constructed

improperly and refused to pay Johnson.

On April 3, 2023, Johnson sent Spangler a letter with an invoice for the construction

of the wall. The correspondence and accompanying invoice identified the business as

“Johnson & Son’s Constr.” On April 10, 2023, Spangler responded by letter, acknowledging

the agreement to pay $5,600 as reflected in the invoice but asserted, again, that the wall was

constructed improperly.

On June 12, 2023, Johnson’s counsel, on behalf of Ron Johnson and “Johnson &

Son’s Construction,” sent Spangler and McGowan a pre-lien notice demanding payment of

the invoice and informing them that a lien would be filed against the property if payment

was not made within ten days of receipt of the notice. Neither McGowan nor Spangler paid

the invoice within ten days after the delivery of the notice.

On July 21, 2023, Johnson filed a mechanics’ and/or materialmen’s lien statement

of lien account and affidavit of notice against Spangler and the property with the Benton

County Circuit Clerk. The claimant on the lien was named as “Mr. Ron Johnson d/b/a Ron

Johnson & Sons, Inc.” This is the first instance in which the name “Ron Johnson & Sons,

Inc.” appeared in connection with the transaction.

2
On June 26, 2024, Johnson, under Ron Johnson d/b/a Ron Johnson & Sons, Inc.,

filed a complaint in foreclosure alleging compliance with all of the statutory requirements to

enforce a lien and seeking damages in the amount of $5,600 along with attorney’s fees and

costs. Johnson also alleged a breach of contract, asserting that there was a material breach of

the parties’ agreement when the invoice was not paid, and he again asserted that he had

suffered damages in the amount of $5,600 and had incurred attorney’s fees and costs.

On July 8, 2024, Spangler filed an answer and counterclaim alleging negligence,

breach of contract, and breach of warranty. On July 22, McGowan filed an answer and

counterclaim alleging a breach of contract.

On November 8, 2024, Spangler moved to nonsuit its counterclaim. An order

granting the nonsuit was entered on November 12, 2024.

The circuit court held a pretrial hearing on November 21, 2024. At the hearing,

Spangler and McGowan made an oral motion to dismiss Johnson’s complaint due to the

forfeited charter status of the named entity and the absence of an assumed-name filing under

Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-70-203 (Repl. 2023). Johnson did not object to

proceeding on the oral motion or request additional time. During the hearing, evidence was

introduced reflecting that “Ron Johnson & Sons, Inc.,” had forfeited its corporate charter.

Evidence was also introduced that no assumed-name certificate was filed in Benton County

for either “Ron Johnson & Sons, Inc.,” or “Ron Johnson.” Johnson did not object to the

circuit court’s consideration of this evidence.

3
Johnson’s counsel acknowledged that the lien was filed in the name “Ron Johnson

d/b/a Ron Johnson & Sons, Inc.,” and requested that the case be allowed to proceed in

Johnson’s individual capacity. Counsel asked the court for permission to amend the

pleadings to proceed in Johnson’s individual capacity. Johnson further argued that even if

the lien was affected, his breach-of-contract claim in his individual name remained. The

circuit court questioned whether Johnson’s counsel agreed that the invoice was in the name

of “Johnson & Sons, Constr.,” and Johnson’s counsel acknowledged that the invoice was

issued in that name. The circuit court determined that this discrepancy precluded Johnson

from proceeding in his individual name under Arkansas Code Annotated section 4-70-203

and granted the motion to dismiss while permitting McGowan to nonsuit its counterclaim

without allowing Johnson to amend his pleadings.

On November 26, 2024, Spangler filed a motion for attorney’s fees with a supporting

brief. That same day, Johnson moved for reconsideration, and McGowan also filed a motion

for attorney’s fees.

On December 2, 2024, the circuit court entered an order dismissing Johnson’s

complaint with prejudice and declaring the mechanics’ and/or materialmen’s lien recorded

on July 21, 2023, invalid and discharged.

On December 9, 2024, McGowan filed a renewed motion for attorney’s fees. On

December 11, Spangler also filed a renewed motion for attorney’s fees. Both McGowan and

Spangler asserted that they were entitled to a mandatory award of attorney’s fees pursuant to

4
Arkansas Code Annotated sections 18-44-128 (Repl. 2015) and 16-22-308 (Repl. 1995). On

December 12, 2024, Johnson filed a renewed motion for reconsideration.

The circuit court held a hearing on the pending motions on January 22, 2025. At

that hearing, Johnson conceded that the lien claim would fail if strict statutory compliance

was not established but maintained that the breach-of-contract claim remained viable.

Following the hearing, on January 28, the circuit court entered an order denying Johnson’s

motions for reconsideration and awarded attorney’s fees of $7,560 to Spangler and $11,522

to McGowan.

When an appellant claims that the circuit court erred in granting a motion to dismiss,

appellate courts review the circuit court’s ruling using a de novo standard of review. Griffith

v. Juarez, 2022 Ark. App. 206, at 4, 645 S.W.3d 339, 342 (citing Nucor Corp. v. Kilman, 358

Ark. 107, 186 S.W.3d 720 (2004)). This court will not reverse a finding of fact unless it is

clearly erroneous. Id. (citing Sanford v. Sanford, 355 Ark. 274, 137 S.W.3d 391 (2003)). This

court treats the facts alleged in the complaint as true and view them in the light most

favorable to the plaintiff. Id. (citing Biedenharn v. Thicksten, 361 Ark. 438, 206 S.W.3d 837

(2005)). In viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the facts should be

liberally construed in plaintiff’s favor. Id.

When an action is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, a

reasonable time, after objection, must be allowed for ratification, joinder, or substitution of

the proper party. Ark. R. Civ. P. 17. Here, the circuit court resolved the real-party-in-interest

issue without affording Johnson the opportunity to amend or substitute. On this record,

5
Johnson should have been given that opportunity. In Gladden v. Bucy, 299 Ark. 523, 772

S.W.2d 612 (1989), after the circuit court determined that the executor was not the proper

party to bring the suit, the appellant offered to amend the complaint to include the guardian

of the children and/or the children themselves as plaintiffs, but the circuit court denied the

request and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Arkansas Supreme Court

explained that, under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 17(a), an action should not be

dismissed for failure to prosecute in the name of the real party interest until a reasonable

time has been allowed for ratification, joinder, or substitution of the proper parties.

Accordingly, the court concluded that circuit court erred in not allowing the

amendment. Therefore, we reverse the dismissal with prejudice and remand to the circuit

court to allow the substitution of the proper party.

Johnson next argues that the circuit court erred in discharging his lien. We review

issues of statutory construction de novo, and we will not reverse a circuit court’s

interpretation of a statute unless it is shown that the circuit court erred. See Sluyter v. Wood

Guys, LLC, 2021 Ark. App. 442, at 4–5, 638 S.W.3d 849, 852. Mechanics’ and materialmen’s

liens are in derogation of common law and created by the legislature; therefore, this court

strictly construes these lien statutes. See id. Arkansas Code Annotated section 18-44-114(a)

(Repl. 2015) requires that a person seeking to avail himself or herself of the lien statutes shall

provide ten days’ notice to the owner before filing the lien. The Arkansas Supreme Court

has held that lien statutes require strict compliance. See TEMCO Constr., LLC v. Gann, 2013

6
Ark. 202, at 4, 427 S.W.3d 651, 654 (citing Books-A-Million, Inc. v. Ark. Painting & Specialties

Co., 340 Ark. 467, 10 S.W.3d 857 (2000)).

Here, the invoice was issued in the name of “Johnson & Sons Const.,” and the pre-

lien notice was served on behalf of Ron Johnson and “Johnson & Sons Construction.” The

lien, however, was filed on behalf of “Mr. Ron Johnson d/b/a Ron Johnson & Sons, Inc.”

These documents show that the entity asserting the lien is not the same party that provided

the invoice or pre-lien notice. Lien statutes require strict compliance, and the entity seeking

to enforce the lien must be the same entity that provided the required statutory notice. That

requirement was not satisfied. A claimant is not entitled to a lien if proper notice is not

given. Bell v. Apache Supply Co., 300 Ark. 494, 496, 780 S.W.2d 529, 530 (1989). Accordingly,

the circuit court did not err in discharging the lien.

Johnson also challenges the circuit court’s award of attorney’s fees to Spangler and

McGowan. Arkansas courts have consistently held that when a judgment in favor of a

prevailing party is reversed, any award of attorney’s fees must also be reversed. See Pettus v.

McDonald, 343 Ark. 507, 516–17, 36 S.W.3d 745, 751 (2001). Therefore, because we reverse

and remand the circuit court’s dismissal of the complaint with prejudice, the attorney’s-fees

award is reversed. See Circle D Contractors, Inc. v. Bartlett, 2013 Ark. 131, at 3; Swaffar v. White,

2024 Ark. App. 417, at 16, 697 S.W.3d 726, 735.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand on the breach-of-contract claim, affirm the circuit

court’s discharge of the lien, and the award of attorney’s fees is reversed.

Reversed and remanded in part; affirmed in part; reversed in part.

7
TUCKER and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

RMP LLP, by: Anna W. Broadaway, for appellant.

Harrington, Miller, Kieklak, Eichmann & Brown, P.A., by: J. Greg Brown, for separate

appellees Kris Spangler and Tina Spangler.

Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: Kael K. Bowling and Rose E. McGarrity, for separate

appellee McGowan Built Properties, LLC.

8