The Arkansas Supreme Court did not issue any decisions yesterday. On Wednesday, the Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down ten decisions. Three of those decisions are noted here.
In Fidelity Life Association v. Nelson, 2024 Ark. App. 595, Fidelity appealed an order denying its motion to dismiss on res judicata grounds, arguing that an Illinois court decision barred Nelson's claims in this action. Nelson moved to dismiss the appeal. She argued that the trial court's order denying the motion to dismiss was not a final appealable order, and that this situation did not fall into one of the categories of interlocutory appeals allowed in Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 2. Fidelity's response cited Rule 2(a)(2), which allows appeals from interlocutory orders determining an action and preventing an appealable judgment.
The Court of Appeals noted that "[a]n appeal from a motion to dismiss on res judicata grounds in not one of the enumerated orders from which an appeal may be taken" listed in Rule 2(a).
Our supreme court has held that when a circuit court denies a defendant's motion to dismiss, the denial is not a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken because the only matter disposed of by the order is that the case should proceed to trial, and those matters put in issue are not lost by continuing to a trial of the matter.
Fidelity, 2024 Ark. App. 595, at 5-6 (citations omitted).
Fidelity argued that the Gipson exception permitted this appeal: a trial court order that was the equivalent of a decision on the merits could be appealed. The court of appeals was not persuaded.
The court's order in this case denying the motion to dismiss is not equivalent to a decision on the merits. ... Because the circuit court's denial of Fidelity Life's motion to dismiss did not conclude the matters between the parties or discharge anyone from the litigation, its claim in this regard is not currently appealable, thereby depriving us of jurisdiction to entertain arguments at this time.
Fidelity, 2024 Ark. App. 595, at 7.
Easley v. College Hill Middle School, 2024 Ark. App. 597, discussed whether a cross-appeal from a Workers' Compensation Commission decision was permissible. College Hill cross-appealed from the Administrative Law Judge's decision when that was appealed to the Commission, but did not file a notice of cross-appeal after the Commission adopted the ALJ's decision. The court cited and quoted Arkansas Code provisions requiring a notice of appeal to cross-appeal a Commission decision. It then stated:
A cross-appeal is an appeal by an appellee who seeks something more than was received in the trial court. Case law is well settled that when an appellee seeks something more than he or she received in the lower court, a notice of cross-appeal is necessary to give us jurisdiction of the cross-appeal. College Hill, however, failed to file a notice of cross-appeal. We therefore lack jurisdiction to consider its arguments....
Easley, 2024 Ark. App. 595, at 9 (citations omitted).
Finally, the court dismissed an appeal without prejudice in Butts v. Goode Holdings, 2024 Ark. App. 588. In dismissing the complaint below, the trial court did not address a particular cause of action; no Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certificate was attached to the trial court's order; and Butts did not state, in his notice of appeal, that he abandoned pending but unresolved claims, pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 3(e)(vi). Since the trial court's order adjudicated fewer than all the claims, it was neither final nor appealable in the absence of Rule 54(b) compliance. Nor did the court believe that the unaddressed claim was impliedly denied.
[A] trial court must dismiss or adjudicate, by written order, all of the claims filed in a lawsuit - even when it appears that the trial court's order has necessarily rendered an outstanding claim moot or impliedly dismissed it. ... Here, we cannot conclude that the trial court impliedly dismissed Butts's claim for declaratory judgment even though it might appear as though the trial court had an opinion about the validity and enforceability of the rental-purchase agreement by virtue of its rulings on Butts's other claims.
Butts, 2024 Ark. App. 588, at 6-7.
No comments:
Post a Comment