Fell v. Fell , 2014 Ark. App. 627 ( 2014 )

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 627
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No.CV-14-440
Opinion Delivered November 5, 2014
APPEAL FROM THE SALINE
JAMES FELL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
APPELLANT [NO. DR-2013-366-1]
V. HONORABLE BOBBY
MCCALLISTER, JUDGE
CAMME FELL
APPELLEE DISMISSED
RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge
The circuit court granted Camme Fell’s complaint for divorce from James Fell.
James appeals and argues that the circuit court’s division of certain property and debt
was clearly erroneous. We dismiss the appeal for lack of a final order because the
divorce decree did not conclude the disposition of the Fells’ property rights.
Camme and James Fell were divorced in February 2014. Camme retained
custody of their only child. The court ordered James to pay Camme around $6500 for
personal property. Further, the parties agreed that James would pay the $851.70
monthly mortgage on the marital home in lieu of child support. However, they could
not agree how to apply the overage, which was the difference between the child
support and the mortgage payment. Another difficulty was determining the child-
support amount. At the time of the divorce, James had criminal charges pending
against him. Those charges resulted in James being laid off from work and his income
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 627
being reduced from a $1447.72 biweekly salary to a $397 weekly unemployment
check. Based on these circumstances, the court ruled that James would pay $99.25 in
weekly child support until his criminal charges were dropped or adjudicated. But if he
pleaded guilty or was found guilty, his child-support obligation would be $246 every
two weeks. It was therefore an open question how much James’s child-support
obligation would be, how much credit he was entitled to for paying the mortgage, and
the ultimate amount he would pay Camme for the personal property.
For this reason, the court held in abeyance the credit due to James for the
mortgage payment as well as the final amount due to Camme for the personal
property. The decree stated that “[t]his amount shall be determined at the conclusion
of the criminal case, and this case shall remain open until that case is concluded and
this remaining issue is determined.” In short, the court would do a final accounting
once James’s criminal charges were settled.
Rule 2(a)(1) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil provides that
an appeal may be taken from a final judgment or decree entered by the circuit court.
When the order appealed from is not final, this court will not decide the merits of the
appeal. Roberts v. Roberts, 70 Ark. App. 94, 95, 14 S.W.3d 529, 530 (2000). Whether a
final judgment, decree, or order exists is a jurisdictional issue that this court has a duty
to raise, even if the parties do not, in order to avoid piecemeal litigation. Id. For a
judgment to be final, it must dismiss the parties from the court, discharge them from
the action, or conclude their rights to the subject matter in controversy. Mason v.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 627
Mason, 2012 Ark. App. 393. Where the order appealed from reflects that further
proceedings are pending, which do not involve merely collateral matters, the order is
not final. Id. Even though an issue on which a court renders a decision might be an
important one, an appeal will be premature if the decision does not, from a practical
standpoint, conclude the merits of the case. Id.
In the present case, the divorce decree is not a final, appealable order and we
must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The decree states that the case would
remain open until James’s criminal case is resolved; at that time, the court would
finalize the credits and debits between the parties. Thus, James’s and Camme’s rights to
the subject matter in controversy have not been concluded, and this appeal is
premature.
Dismissed.
GLOVER and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.
Gregory E. Bryant, for appellant.
No response.