Category: Cases

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

SCOA: Certified Mail Service on LLC Valid Despite Postal “Restricted Delivery” Error

In the case Advance Fiberglass, LLC v. Rovnaghi, 2011 Ark. 516 (decided December 8, 2011), the Arkansas Supreme Court held that service sent via certified mail with restricted delivery to the agent of the defendant limited liability company was proper even though the agent did not sign the mail receipt.

The certified mail, with “restricted delivery” requested, was addressed to Bryan S. Jeffrey, the LLC’s agent. But an employee of Mr. Jeffrey, rather than Mr. Jeffrey himself, signed the certified mail receipt.

The LLC sought dismissal on the basis of insufficient service of process. Continue reading SCOA: Certified Mail Service on LLC Valid Despite Postal “Restricted Delivery” Error

ACOA: Notice of Appeal of Post-Judgment Attorney Fee Order Must Reference the Order

The case Spill Responders, Inc. v. Felts, 2011 Ark. App. 267, is a good reminder of two important points regarding appeals: (1) To preserve trial error arguments, they must be made during trial; (2) A post-judgment attorney fee award order must be mentioned in the notice of appeal to be challenged on appeal.

Background

The litigation in this case stemmed from a dispute over a corporate stock purchase agreement. Continue reading ACOA: Notice of Appeal of Post-Judgment Attorney Fee Order Must Reference the Order