Jacobs v. Collison , 2015 Ark. App. 420 ( 2015 )

Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 420
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-14-733
RUTH JACOBS Opinion Delivered AUGUST 26, 2015
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CV 2014-113-2]
DEREK COLLISON
APPELLEE HONORABLE DOUG MARTIN,
JUDGE
APPEAL DISMISSED
BART F. VIRDEN, Judge
Ruth Jacobs appeals the Washington County Circuit Court’s dismissal of her complaint
against appellee Derek Collison, with whom Jacobs had a live-in, nonmarital relationship for
several years. We must dismiss this appeal for lack of a final, appealable order.
Jacobs contends that the parties were involved in a seven-year personal and professional
partnership during which they shared income and assets and held themselves out as husband
and wife. The relationship started in 2006, before the parties moved to Arkansas in 2010. The
relationship ended in September 2013.
On January 22, 2014, Jacobs filed a complaint against Collison seeking a declaratory
judgment that a partnership existed and for dissolution of that partnership. Alternatively,
Jacobs sought to impose a constructive trust in her favor on one-half of all the parties’ real and
personal property, including monies held in accounts. Jacobs also asserted causes of action for
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 420
breach of implied contract and duty of ordinary care, good faith and fair dealing; promissory
estoppel; unjust enrichment; intentional infliction of emotional distress and outrage; and fraud.
She further sought to have the court appoint a receiver and impose an equitable lien on
Collison’s company. Jacobs amended her complaint on March 21, 2014, to include the
service of interrogatories and requests for the production of documents.
Collison did not file an answer to Jacobs’s complaint or amended complaint. Instead,
he filed a counterclaim asserting that he was the owner of real property and that Jacobs has
refused to leave the property and was guilty of unlawful detainer. He sought Jacobs’s eviction.
Jacobs failed to respond to the counterclaim or to the notice of intent to issue writ of
possession. On April 21, 2014, a writ of possession was issued by the circuit clerk.
Collison also filed an Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion for dismissal of Jacobs’s amended
complaint for failure to state facts upon which relief can be granted. A brief accompanied the
motion. Jacobs responded to the dismissal motion. The court granted Collison’s motion and
dismissed Jacobs’s first amended complaint with prejudice. This appeal followed.
Although neither party raises the issue, the question of whether an order is final and
subject to appeal is a jurisdictional question, which this court will raise sua sponte. Moses v.
Hanna’s Candle Co., 353 Ark. 101, 110 S.W.3d 725 (2003). Rule 2(a)(1) of the Arkansas
Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil provides that an appeal may be taken only from a final
judgment or decree entered by the circuit court. Searcy Cnty. Counsel for Ethical Gov’t v.
Hinchey, 2011 Ark. 533. Under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), an order that fails to
adjudicate all the claims as to all the parties, whether presented as claims, counterclaims,
2
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 420
cross-claims, or third-party claims, is not final for purposes of appeal. Dodge v. Lee, 350 Ark.
480, 88 S.W.3d 843 (2002) (citing City of Corning v. Cochran, 350 Ark. 12, 84 S.W.3d 439
(2002); Office of Child Support Enforcement v. Willis, 341 Ark. 378, 17 S.W.3d 85 (2000)).
Although Rule 54(b) provides a method by which the circuit court may direct entry of final
judgment as to fewer than all the claims or parties, where there is no attempt to comply with
Rule 54(b), the order is not final, and we must dismiss the appeal. Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v.
Farrar, 2011 Ark. 181.
The finality problem arises because Collison filed a counterclaim against Jacobs for
unlawful detainer and the counterclaim was not addressed by the circuit court. Where the
order appealed from does not dispose of a counterclaim, the order is not final under Rule
54(b), and the appeal must be dismissed. Bevans v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 373 Ark.
105, 281 S.W.3d 740 (2008); Dodge, supra. The purpose of the counterclaim was to force
Jacobs to vacate the home the parties shared. As mentioned above, a writ of possession was
issued on April 21, 2014. However, this does not constitute a final disposition of the
counterclaim because the writ was issued by the circuit clerk when Jacobs failed to respond
within five business days of Collison’s notice of intention to have the writ issued. See Ark.
Code Ann. § 18-60-307(b) (Supp. 2013). It is not a final adjudication of the parties’ rights.
See Ark. Code Ann. § 18-60-307(d)(1)(B)(ii). Here, there is no Rule 54(b) certificate. Even
if Jacobs has vacated the premises and no further action is necessary, the circuit court still
needs to enter an order stating that fact and dismissing the counterclaim. It is also possible that
other proceedings may be needed in the court below to address the notice of lis pendens filed
3
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 420
by Jacobs.
It is not enough to dismiss some of the parties or to dispose of some of the claims; to
be final and appealable, an order must cover all of the parties and all of the claims. J-McDaniel
Constr. Co. v. Dale E. Peters Plumbing Ltd., 2013 Ark. 177 (emphasis in original) (citing
Williamson v. Misemer, 316 Ark. 192, 871 S.W.2d 396 (1994)). Thus, we lack jurisdiction of
this appeal because a final order has not been entered disposing of all the claims.
Appeal dismissed.
GLADWIN, C.J., and BROWN, J., agree.
Davidson Law Firm, by: Stephanie Ann Linam, for appellant.
Cullen & Co., PLLC, by: Tim Cullen; and Everett, Wales & Comstock, by: Jason W.
Wales, for appellee.
4