Boston Mountain Reg'l Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist v. Benton Cnty. Reg'l Solid Waste Mgmt. Dist.

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 733ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CV-14-481
BOSTON MOUNTAIN REGIONAL Opinion Delivered December 17, 2014
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT APPEAL FROM THE BENTON
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CV-2013-940-5]
V.
HONORABLE XOLLIE DUNCAN,
JUDGE
BENTON COUNTY REGIONAL
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
DISTRICT
APPELLEE
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Boston Mountain Regional Solid Waste Management District appeals from
a judgment in favor of appellee Benton County Regional Solid Waste Management District
following a breach-of-contract action. We do not reach the merits of this appeal and dismiss
without prejudice because of an insufficient Rule 54(b) certificate.
Appellant and appellee are regional solid-waste-management districts governed by
Arkansas Code Annotated section 8-6-701 et seq. (Repl. 2011). Section 8-6-704(a)(11) of
this chapter confers authority on regional solid-waste-management districts to enter into
contracts, and from this authority, the parties entered into a contract, entitled the Interlocal
Agreement, for the disposal of solid waste.
Pursuant to the terms of the Interlocal Agreement, each party agreed to charge $1.50
per ton on all solid waste generated within its respective district or brought into its district
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 733from another district for disposal. The Interlocal Agreement was binding until May 1, 2016.
However, appellant unilaterally terminated the agreement on May 9, 2013, before its
specified end-date.
Appellee sued appellant in the Benton County Circuit Court alleging breach of
contract and seeking specific performance of the Interlocal Agreement. Appellant answered
and counterclaimed for declaratory judgment and affirmative relief. The circuit court ruled
in favor of appellee finding that the agreement was valid and binding on both parties, that
it contained the provisions required by statute, and that appellant breached the contract. The
circuit court ordered specific performance of the Interlocal Agreement through May 2016.
It did not, however, rule on appellant’s counterclaim.
Appellant timely appealed the circuit court’s order. Later, appellant filed a motion for
issuance of a certified final judgment. The circuit court entered a certified final judgment
that included a Rule 54(b) certification, and appellant filed an amended notice of appeal of
the partial judgment of the circuit court.
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. Whether
an order is final and subject to appeal is a jurisdictional question that this court will raise sua
sponte.1
A circuit court may certify an otherwise nonfinal order for immediate appeal by
1
Kowalski v. Rose Drugs of Dardanelle, Inc., 2009 Ark. 524, 357 S.W.3d 432.
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 733executing a certificate pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).2 Rule 54(b)
provides in pertinent part that a circuit court may direct the entry of a final judgment “only
upon an express determination, supported by specific factual findings, that there is no just
reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.” In addition, the
rule provides that, if such a determination is made, the court must execute a certificate
“which shall set forth the factual findings upon which the determination to enter the
judgment as final is based.” This rule requires that the certificate include specific findings of
any danger of hardship or injustice that could be alleviated by an immediate appeal and to
set out the factual underpinnings that establish such hardship or injustice.3
Recognizing that the circuit court did not dispose of all issues in the case, the
appellant moved for a certified final judgment, and the circuit court entered a certified final
judgment with a Rule 54(b) certificate that provided as follows:
1. The parties entered into an Agreement authorized by Act 209 of 2011, and
Arkansas Code Annotated § 8-6-701 et seq.
2. The Agreement was valid and binding on both parties.
3. The Defendant breached the contract when it refused to pay a portion of the fees
to the Plaintiff as contemplated by the Agreement.
Upon the basis of the foregoing factual findings, the Court hereby certifies, in
accordance with Rule 54(b)(1), Ark. R. Civ. P., that it has determined that there is
no just reason for delay of the entry of a final judgment and that the Court has and
does hereby direct that the judgment shall be a final judgment for all purposes.
2
Holbrook v. Healthport, Inc., 2013 Ark. 87; Robinson v. Villines, 2012 Ark. 211.
3
Id.; Blackman v. Glidewell, 2011 Ark. 23; Kowalski, supra.3
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 733Here, the circuit court’s Rule 54(b) certificate fails to contain any specific factual
findings on any danger of hardship or injustice that could be alleviated by an immediate
appeal. Because the Rule 54(b) certificate executed in this case does not conform to the
requirements of the rule and the relevant case law, it is ineffective to certify the appeal.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice.
Dismissed without prejudice.
HARRISON and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.
Harrington, Miller, Kieklak, Eichmann & Brown, P.A., by: Thomas N. Kieklak, for
appellant.
Hall, Estill, Hardwick, Gable, Golden & Nelson, P.C., by: Curtis E. Hogue, for appellee.
4