SCOA: Nonsuiting Plaintiff Cannot Be Assessed Costs Until Refiling

In Kesai v. Almand, 2011 Ark. 207, — S.W.3d —-, decided on May 12, 2011, the plaintiff brought suit in Washington County Circuit Court seeking damages from a motor vehicle accident. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury was impaneled, selected, and sworn.

Just before the trial began, the plaintiff requested a voluntary dismissal. Because the jury had already been sworn, the circuit court entered an order charging the plaintiff with the costs of the court interpreter and with jury expenses. The order was amended to substitute the plaintiff’s counsel as the party responsible for paying the trial costs.

On appeal, the supreme court held that the circuit court order was in error. Continue reading SCOA: Nonsuiting Plaintiff Cannot Be Assessed Costs Until Refiling

SCOA: Now or Never for Immediately Appealable Interlocutory Orders

This is a very significant mid-2011 case.

In the case, In re Estate of Stinnett, 2011 Ark. 278, — S.W.3d —-, decided on June 23, 2011, the supreme court held that an interlocutory order which is immediately appealable per Ark. R.App. P.–Civ. 2(a) can only be appealed within the time specified in Ark. R.App. P.–Civ. 4.

Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed within 30 days after the circuit court’s final distribution order, but appellant’s only point for reversal was a challenge to an earlier order striking a filing made by appellant.

The supreme court held that since the earlier order was immediately appealable, either as an order striking a pleading or as an immediately appealable probate order per A.C.A. § 28-1-116, the time frame in which it could have been appealed was 30 days. Appellant’s appeal was thus untimely. Continue reading SCOA: Now or Never for Immediately Appealable Interlocutory Orders

ACOA: Money Judgment Must Contain Specific Dollar Amount

This domestic relations court of appeals case from last fall highlights an important rule concerning judgments.

In Hayes v. Otto, 2011 Ark. App. 564 (decided September 28, 2011), a father appeals a circuit court order concerning overdue child support payments owed to him by the child’s mother. The appellant father contended that the circuit court erred in several ways in its ruling computing the amount of overdue child support payments owed.

However, the court of appeals determined that the case was not ripe for appeal due to lack of a final order because the judgment did not specific a specific monetary amount being awarded. Continue reading ACOA: Money Judgment Must Contain Specific Dollar Amount

SCOA: Previous Subject Matter Jurisdiction Dismissal Does Not Count For 2-Dismissal Rule

In the case Jonesboro Healthcare Ctr., LLC v. Eaton-Moery Envtl. Services, Inc., 2011 Ark. 501 (decided December 1, 2011), the Arkansas Supreme Court held that a previous dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction will not count as a dismissal for purposes of the two-dismissal provision of Ark.R.Civ.P. 41(b).

Generally under Rule 41(b), a dismissal will be deemed to be with prejudice if the case has previously been dismissed. (Sometimes this is referred to as the “two-dismissal rule.”)

But in this case, notwithstanding what it said was the “literal” language of the rule, the supreme court held that a previous subject matter jurisdiction dismissal will not be considered the type of dismissal to which Rule 41(b) applies. Continue reading SCOA: Previous Subject Matter Jurisdiction Dismissal Does Not Count For 2-Dismissal Rule