The Arkansas Supreme Court handed down one decision on Thursday; the Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down thirteen signed decisions on Wednesday. Let's take a look at three of those appellate decisions.
In Bauer v. Beamon, 2025 Ark. 16, the Supreme Court addressed the back end of the appellate process: the jurisdictional effect of a mandate. Procedurally, there were two trips to the appellate court and decisions in the trial court that all affected the decision - please be patient with me.
The trial court granted relief and attorney's fees to the Beamons. The Bauers appealed and the Beamons cross-appealed. On the case's first trip to the Supreme Court (2023 Ark. 194), the court reversed the damages award against the Bauers, affirmed on cross-appeal, and noted lack of jurisdiction to review the award of attorney's fees - that award apparently occurred after the damages award, but the Bauers did not file an amended notice of appeal.
After the mandate issued, the Beamons sought payment of their attorney's fee award. The Bauers responded with their own motions: one for attorney's fees, and another to set aside the Beamons' fee award on the basis of Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(4). The trial court ultimately concluded it lacked jurisdiction to proceed with any relief. The Bauers appealed that decision, bringing the case back to the Supreme Court.
The court wrote that the "single issue on appeal is whether the circuit court erred by concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Bauers' motions." Bauer, 2025 Ark. 16, at 4. An examination of the first appeal's mandate was required to determine if it foreclosed trial court relief.
The court began its analysis by setting forth basic mandate rules.
The mandate is the official notice by the appellate court, directed to the court below, advising that court of the action taken by the appellate court, and directing the lower court to duly recognize, obey, and execute the appellate court's judgment. Under the mandate rule, a circuit court has no power or authority to deviate from the mandate issued by the appellate court. ...
The lower court may not vary the decision or judicially examine it for any purpose other than execution. The lower court's jurisdiction is limited to that which is conferred by the appellate court mandate. ...
Id. at 4 (citations omitted).
On the first appeal, the Supreme Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Beamons' fee award. The Bauers' subsequent motions were not affected by that earlier appeal, but presented new issues. The Bauers' request for fees was a collateral matter, over which jurisdiction remained in the trial court. The Bauers' motion to set aside was governed by Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(4) and was not affected by the law-of-the-case doctrine.
Thus, since the Supreme Court's first mandate did not address the issues raised by either of the Bauers' two subsequent motions, the trial court retained jurisdiction over those matters.
Addressing a couple of Court of Appeals decisions won't be quite so laborious.
In Butler v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2025 Ark. App. 137, a mother and father challenged the termination of their parental rights. On appeal, both parents raised a particular argument, but the panel held that it was not preserved for appeal by the father. While the mother raised an objection in the trial court that preserved the argument, the father did not join her objection. "A party is bound by the scope of the arguments made to the circuit court." Id. at 7.
In Fondren v. Fondren, 2025 Ark. App. 144, the court ordered rebriefing. The Appellant's brief did not contain a sufficient statement of the case and facts: he offered a "scant summary" of two witnesses' testimony, and merely listed six other witnesses. He also provided "an inadequate one-sentence summary of a portion of the circuit court's order. This is far from all the essential information the court needs to understand and decide the case." Id. at 2.
The Appellee raised several issues on cross-appeal, but the underlying facts were not discussed in the Appellant's statement of the case - and it appears that she did not offer her own statement of the case, but that isn't clear - so the court could not address her arguments, either. The court was also troubled by the Appellee's presentation of her arguments as appellee and cross-appellant - they did not proceed in the order required by rule.
It behooves counsel to provide this court not only well-argued briefs but also briefs that are organized and otherwise in compliance with Rule 4-2. Because of the mandatory nature of Rule 4-2, we cannot ignore the failure of both counsel to comply. Accordingly, we order the parties to file substituted briefs curing any deficiencies.
Fondren, 2025 Ark. App. 144, at 3.
Thank you for reading - comments are welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment