## Facts

- Alta Wilson, a Florida resident, alleged an agreement with her sister, Georgia Adkins, and her nephew, Ronnie Adkins, related to Wilson donating bone marrow to Georgia for transplantation.
- Wilson alleged the defendants agreed to pay her $101,500 as compensation for the risks and consequences of the donation procedure.
- Wilson claimed she relied on the agreement and that defendants failed to perform, causing her loss.
- Wilson sued alleging detrimental reliance, breach of contract, and fraud.
- The chancery court dismissed the detrimental-reliance claim and transferred the remaining claims to circuit court.
- The circuit court dismissed all remaining claims under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), ruling the alleged agreement was illegal under federal law banning the sale of human organs.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint alleged sufficient facts under Arkansas fact-pleading standards to survive dismissal under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
2. Whether an agreement to transfer bone marrow for $101,500 is void as an illegal organ-sale contract under 42 U.S.C. § 274e, barring recovery on contract, reliance, or fraud theories.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).
- Accepting the complaint’s factual allegations as true, the court held the agreement was, in substance, a transfer of a human organ for valuable consideration for transplantation, prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 274e.
- The court concluded $101,500 could not be characterized as “reasonable payments” for permitted costs or donor expenses under the statute.
- Because the alleged bargain was plainly illegal and void as against public policy, the court refused to allow any recovery based on the agreement, including claims framed as detrimental reliance or fraud.

## Legal Principles

- Arkansas requires fact pleading; a complaint must allege facts showing entitlement to relief, not mere conclusions, and is tested under Rules 8(a)(1) and 12(b)(6) together.
- On Rule 12(b)(6) review, courts assume pleaded facts are true, view them favorably to the plaintiff, and construe pleadings liberally, but may dismiss where the complaint shows an illegal contract on its face.
- Under 42 U.S.C. § 274e, it is unlawful to knowingly transfer a human organ for valuable consideration for use in transplantation when the transfer affects interstate commerce; only specified “reasonable payments” for costs and certain donor expenses are permitted.
- Courts will not enforce an illegal contract or assist either party in obtaining benefits from it; where parties are in pari delicto, neither may recover.
- A plaintiff may not avoid the public-policy bar against illegal contracts by recasting enforcement of the illegal bargain as tort or reliance claims when those claims are grounded in the same unlawful exchange.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal at the pleading stage because the complaint alleged a paid bone-marrow-for-transplantation arrangement prohibited by federal law, rendering the agreement void and preventing recovery under contract, reliance, or fraud theories.


Wilson v. Adkins, 941 S.W.2d 440 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997)