Opinion highlights for the week of February 16, 2025

The fourteen decisions handed down this week all originated with the Arkansas Court of Appeals.  A couple of those decisions merit mention here.

Bunch v. Ryland, 2025 Ark. App. 96, was dismissed without prejudice for lack of a final order.  The trial court declined to quiet title to certain real property, but ordered that property partitioned instead.  Appellants appealed; the appellee argued that a decree of partition is not a final appealable order.  The court cited Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 2(a)(1) and caselaw holding that decrees ordering partition are not final orders for appeal purposes; the court did not read the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act as creating an exception to this rule.  Nor did the decree put the court's directive into execution: easements had not been determined, the surveyor's report was still subject to challenge, and tract distribution could be an issue.  "Further judicial action is contemplated before the titles to the parcels are legally in possession of the people who own it.  For this reason, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice." Bunch, 2025 Ark. App. 96, at 5.

Lowery v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 106, involved an attempt to vacate a plea agreement.  Lowery entered a negotiated plea in July 2015; eight years later, in August 2023, she filed a "Motion to Vacate Plea Agreement Due to Breach."  The Court of Appeals viewed this as a collateral attack on the judgment, governed by Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1.  Lowery's "Motion" was untimely under Rule 37.2(c)'s ninety-day limitation.  This time limitation was jurisdictional in nature; thus, the trial court lacked jurisdiction, which in turn caused the appellate court to lack jurisdiction.

Thank you for reading!