i QUESTION PRESENTED On remand from this Court, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing the trial court’s judgment and remanding for entry of judgment consistent with this Court’s opinion in Pavan v. Smith, 137 S. Ct. 2075 (2017). Despite arguing throughout the pendency of the case that the trial court was the proper court to consider any request for attorney’s fees, Petitioners subsequently moved for appellate attorney’s fees in the Arkansas Supreme Court. That motion was denied in an unreasoned order, as is the usual practice of that court. The trial court later noted that “[t]he actions of [Petitioners’] counsel indicate that she is totally unfamiliar with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Rules of Appellate Procedure relating to procedural matters involving the award of attorney’s fees.” “It facially appears that the [Petitioners’] request at the appellate level was denied because it was procedurally improper, that all of the requested fees and costs should have been submitted to this court for a factual determination, and that . . . the [Petitioners] have forfeited their ability to request the award of any additional fees or costs by not properly and timely submitting them to this court for adjudication.” This Court will not review a decision of a state court if the decision of that court rests on a state law ground independent of any federal question, whether that state law ground is substantive or procedural. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729 (1991). The question presented is: Where the Petitioners’ request for appellate attorney’s fees was procedurally defaulted on state law