Opinion highlights for the week of May 17, 2026 - part two

 

This post addresses the remaining cases on the Arkansas Court of Appeals' May 20, 2026, docket not covered in my July 9, 2026, post.  Three decisions are noted here.

Muruaga-Atkins v. Foster, 2026 Ark. App. 336, involves a dispute over listing real property for sale and over membership in the organization seeking to effect the sale.  Among other arguments, the appellants challenged the organization's authority to sell the property.

The Court of Appeals declined to address this point on ripeness grounds.  Ripeness is a jurisdictional issue - the court lacks jurisdiction to consider issues that are not ripe for review on appeal. Id. at 19.  At this point, the organization had only voted to list the property for sale - it had not yet been listed, nor had an offer to purchase been accepted.  This situation was not reviewable.

Thus, the issue is not ripe for our review. Moreover, at this juncture and without knowing the specifics surrounding the ultimate sale of the property, any determination as to the authority of AFF to sell the property at issue would constitute an advisory opinion. This court will not render an advisory opinion.

Id. at 19-20.

One of the issues in Summers v. Bank OZK, 2026 Ark. App. 352, involved the effectiveness of a Rule 54(b) certificate.  A non-final order was entered by the trial court in June of 2022; some fifteen months later, in September of 2023, a Rule 54(b) certificate was filed separately.

The Court of Appeals noted Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1)'s requirement that a Rule 54(b) certificate "shall appear immediately after the court's signature on the judgment."  Here, the certificate was a standalone document initially filed fifteen months after the order.

Later in September of 2023, the trial court granted a motion to combine the order and certificate.  The majority found that this did not cure the jurisdictional defect.

While the order purports to cure the defective Rule 54(b) certificate—it being a separate document from the judgment—it is insufficient. The after-the-fact order consolidating the pleadings does not trump the statutory requirement that the Rule 54(b) certificate be placed on the judgment itself immediately following the court’s signature. Here, it is a complete standalone document with its own case caption. Further, the record demonstrates that although the two pleadings were refiled together as instructed by the court, there were no changes to the documents themselves. 

Summers, 2026 Ark. App. 352, at 14.  The court found that this "combined order" Rule 54(b) certificate did not comply with the rules, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the combined order on appeal.

A dissent argued that the combined order could be addressed on appeal - the certificate did not standalone, but it was part of a single combined document and it appears after the trial court's signature on the order.

Readers may recall that the Arkansas Supreme Court is considering changes to Rule 54(b) that will address this issue.  The relevant per curiam opinion is at 2026 Ark. 111.

Finally, Harding Logistics v. Director, 2026 Ark. App. 355, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  The petition for review from a Board of Review decision was signed by the president of the employer company, but he was not an attorney.  The act of someone not licensed to practice law, in an attempt to represent others, is a nullity.  The petition seeking review was null and void, leaving the court without jurisdiction.

Enjoy your day.

Opinion highlights for the week of May 17, 2026 - part one

 

An earlier post noted that the Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down forty-five decisions on May 20, 2026.  Having reviewed decisions authored by six judges, I will note four of those decisions here.  A subsequent post will highlight decisions authored by the other six judges.

These four cases involve fairly common appellate practice issues, but they provide worthwhile reminders.

Finney v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 308, involves a probation revocation appeal.  Finney argued that the State did not prove that he inexcusably violated his probationary terms and conditions.  However, the trial court revoked his probation on multiple grounds, and Finney failed to challenge at least one of them on appeal.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the rule that "[w]hen the circuit court bases its decision to revoke on multiple independent grounds, and the appellant fails to challenge any independent alternative basis for the judgment, we will affirm without addressing the arguments targeted to the other grounds." Id. at 3.

Hernandez v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 315 also involves probation revocation.  Counsel for Hernandez filed an Anders brief, but the Court of Appeals ordered rebriefing.  Hernandez provides a good review of Anders' requirements and illustrates its application, but I want to note this line from the Hernandez opinion: "We will continue to order rebriefing until compliance with Anders and Rule 4- 3(b)(1) is achieved." Hernandez, 2026 Ark. App. 315, at 3.

Goodnight v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2026 Ark. App. 316, is a child custody appeal.  The Court of Appeals listed seven arguments raised by Goodnight, but declined to address any of them.

As the Department explains, Kristen does not support any of the above arguments with citations to any legal authority. “We do not consider arguments without convincing argument or citation to authority where it is not apparent without further research that the arguments are well-taken.”

Id. at 9 (citation omitted).  The Court of Appeals did consider a "best interest" argument.

Finally, McDaniel v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 327, addresses an appeal from a second-degree sexual assault conviction.  The Court of Appeals offered a cautionary note about McDaniel's statement of the case and the facts, but "all appellate counsel" are encouraged to pay attention here:

Were it not for the State’s thorough supplemental statement of the case and facts, we would not reach the merits of this appeal without first requiring that the case be rebriefed. Appellant’s statement of the case and facts is woefully deficient, providing only an overview of the case’s procedural path to trial, a brief description of the portion of the trial testimony and the instruction to which McDaniel objected, and references to his motions for directed verdict. The statement of the case does not provide any substantive testimony or evidence, which is especially troubling when considering that the transcript is over one thousand pages long and McDaniel challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2 directs counsel on the required contents of appellate briefs: the statement of the case and facts shall include all information in the appellate record that is essential to understand the case and decide the issues on appeal. Ark. R. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(6). The requirements of Rule 4-2 are mandatory. McDaniel’s counsel is not alone in failing to provide an adequate statement of the case. This is a frequent occurrence and merits all appellate counsel’s review of Rule 4-2 and adherence thereto.

McDaniel, 2026 Ark. App. 327, at 2 n.1 (citation omitted).

Thank you for reading. 

Summer Break 2026 - part two

 

Summer break rolls on.  Last week, the Arkansas Supreme Court did not post a syllabus.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals did post a syllabus on Wednesday, July 1, 2026.  Sixteen pages in length, that syllabus lists orders disposing of the matters submitted the week before - there are no opinions to note.

The Court of Appeals' syllabus documents the filing of an amicus brief that is interesting.  Filed by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Roark v. Hyland, CV-25-540, the brief does a good job setting forth the Society's policy related to the case and the potential harm from a ruling against the City of Little Rock, all in less than eleven pages of argument.  The only authorities cited are Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-6, a book, and three items from the internet.

Thank you for reading.