Graves v. Graves ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                  Cite as 
    2014 Ark. App. 331
    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION II
    No. CV-13-1156
    Opinion Delivered   May 28, 2014
    BERTHA BELLE GRAVES                               APPEAL FROM THE VAN BUREN
    APPELLANT          COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
    [NO. DR-2012-59]
    V.
    HONORABLE DAVID M. CLARK,
    JUDGE
    JAMES JAY GRAVES
    APPELLEE         DISMISSED
    ROBIN F. WYNNE, Judge
    Bertha Belle Graves appeals from the trial court’s denial of her motion for new trial in
    the parties’ divorce action. She argues on appeal that the trial court erred by denying her
    motion because there was no corroboration of grounds, the guardianship of the person and
    estate of appellee James Jay Graves is void, and the settlement agreement entered into by the
    parties was obtained as a result of duress and coercion. We must dismiss the appeal for lack
    of a final order.
    An appeal may be taken only from a final judgment or decree entered by the trial
    court. Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 2(a)(1) (2013). Whether an order is final and appealable is a
    jurisdictional question that may be raised by this court sua sponte. See Lamont v. Healthcare
    Capital, Inc., 
    2013 Ark. App. 283
    . 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
    Cite as 
    2014 Ark. App. 331
    controversy. Roberts v. Roberts, 
    70 Ark. App. 94
    , 
    14 S.W.3d 529
    (2000). Thus, the order
    must put the trial court’s directive into execution, ending the litigation or a separable branch
    of it. 
    Id. The decree
    orders the parties to agree to a division of their property within fifteen days
    of the filing of the decree and states that any property not agreed on is to be sold at auction,
    with the proceeds divided between the parties. However, the decree also states that “[i]f after
    the sale either party is not satisfied that all items were in fact returned, they have the right to
    request a hearing on the issue of the missing items.” The decree does not fully dispose of the
    parties’ property and explicitly contemplates the possibility of future litigation with regard to
    the subject matter in controversy. The decree is not final for the purposes of appeal;
    therefore, the appeal must be dismissed.
    Dismissed.
    WALMSLEY and HARRISON, JJ., agree.
    Worsham Law Firm, P.A., by: Richard E. Worsham, for appellant.
    Jensen Young & Houston, PLLC, by: Terence C. Jensen, for appellee.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CV-13-1156

Judges: Robin F. Wynne

Filed Date: 5/28/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021