Opinion highlights for the week of September 28, 2025

 

Nineteen decisions were handed down by the Arkansas Court of Appeals on October 1, 2025; the Arkansas Supreme Court handed down two decisions the next day.  Let's examine some of those Court of Appeals decisions.

Among other arguments raised in Spencer v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 450, Spencer argued that the trial court admitted certain evidence without proper authentication; she claimed that her assertion that one of the items "hadn't been verified" sufficed to raise this issue at trial.  The Court of Appeals disagreed and found that the issue was not preserved for appeal.  Spencer raised a hearsay objection and another claim about this evidence, but did not argue authentication.  Since this argument was not raised below, the Court of Appeals would not review it on appeal.

In a twenty-one page opinion, the Court of Appeals considered a number of issues in a divorce case, Vallis v. Vallis, 2025 Ark. App. 465.  Among them was the husband's claim that a vehicle was non-marital property.  However, at a hearing the attorneys for both parties "agreed and represented that they thought what the circuit court divided was found to be marital property"; of course, this included the vehicle. Id. at 19.  Although the Court of Appeals seemed to affirm the trial court on another basis, it noted the rule "that an appellant cannot complain on appeal that the circuit court erred if the appellant induced, consented to, or acquiesced in the court's position." Id.

Finally, in Shelter Mutual Insurance Co. v. Velazquez, 2025 Ark. App. 462, Shelter sought to bring an interlocutory appeal on a partial summary judgment ("PSJ") favoring Velazquez.  The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the PSJ was not a final, appealable order.  The PSJ apparently found that Velasquez was covered by Shelter's uninsured-motorist provision.

Shelter acknowledged that its subsequent appeal was interlocutory in nature.  However, Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 2(a)(2) - permitting an appeal from an order that effectively determines an action - did not apply, because claims against another party (the car's driver) and the issue of damages remained outstanding.  Rule 2(a)(4) - permitting an appeal from an order that strikes an answer - did not help, because nothing was stricken.  Nor was there an Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certificate.  Thus, dismissal was appropriate.

Enjoy your weekend!