CNH Industrial Capital America LLC v. Venture Equipment LLC

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-3511
___________________________
CNH Industrial Capital America LLC
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Venture Equipment LLC; Steve Merritt; Ryan Adams; Randall Reed; Donald
Johnson; Joseph Ridings; Rick Langston; James E. Langston; Wilford O.
Langston; Wilford D. Langston; Kyle Langston; Greg A. Langston
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants
Damon Merritt
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
Heidi Merritt; Eastline Leasing LLC; First Community Bank; BFG Corporation,
doing business as Byline Financial Group as Assignee of De Lage Landen
Financial Services, Inc, doing business as Byline Financial Group, doing business
as De Lage Landen Financial Services Inc; Manitou North America LLC; James
W. Langston
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Central
____________

-- 1 of 3 --

Submitted: February 6, 2026
Filed: February 11, 2026
[Unpublished]
____________
Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Arkansas resident Damon Merritt appeals following the district court’s adverse
grant of summary judgment and denial of his post-judgment motions in a diversity
action brought by CNH Industrial Capital America LLC (CNH), which raised claims
under Arkansas state law.
CNH had agreements with Venture Equipment LLC, an agricultural equipment
dealership owned by Merritt’s brother, to provide financing to acquire inventory and
for customers’ equipment purchases. The summary judgment record showed that
during a 2022 audit, CNH discovered 20 fictitious retail contracts with Venture
Equipment taken out in Merritt’s name. A forensic accountant working for CNH
identified 74 payments from Venture Equipment to bank accounts in Merritt’s name
between June 2017 and December 2021, totaling $855,232.14. Summary judgment
was granted to CNH on a fraudulent conveyance claim under the Arkansas Uniform
Voidable Transactions Act (UVTA). Upon careful review, we conclude that the
district court did not err in granting summary judgment to CNH. See Johnson v.
Blaukat, 453 F.3d 1108, 1112 (8th Cir. 2006) (de novo review).
During the trial on the remaining claims, CNH’s forensic accountant testified
that all but approximately $40,000 of the $855,232.14 paid to Merritt’s accounts was
paid back to Venture Equipment or CNH to pay off the fictitious contracts. The jury
-2-

-- 2 of 3 --

found Merritt not liable on CNH’s remaining claims. In its final judgment, the
district court ordered Merritt to pay $855,232.14 to CNH on the UVTA claim.
Merritt argued in post-trial and post-judgment motions that CNH’s claim was
untimely as to some of the 74 payments. The district court rejected these arguments,
finding that Merritt had waived his timeliness defense by failing to raise it until after
trial. On appeal, Merritt argues that his timeliness argument was not waived because
the UVTA constituted a statute of repose rather than a statute of limitations, and that
enforcing the judgment would be inequitable.
Because the district court did not explicitly consider whether the award of the
full amount of the fraudulent conveyances afforded CNH a windfall double recovery,
we remand for the court to consider this issue in light of the evidence presented at
trial that a majority of the amount transferred to Merritt by Venture Equipment was
transferred back. See Douglas v. Adams Trucking Co., 46 S.W.3d 512, 517 (Ark.
2001) (disapproving of double recovery). If the timeliness issue still affects the
amount of the judgment upon reconsideration, we also direct the district court to
consider in the first instance whether the UVTA constituted a statute of repose or a
statute of limitations, and thus whether Merritt’s timeliness challenge was waived.
See Ray & Sons Masonry Contractors, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 114
S.W.3d 189, 199 (Ark. 2003) (comparing statutes of limitations and statutes of
repose).
Accordingly, we affirm in part, and we remand to the district court for further
proceedings as to the amount of the judgment.
______________________________
-3-

-- 3 of 3 --