Burton v. Templeman

Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 101
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CV-14-425
Opinion Delivered February 18, 2015
TINA ALMASY BURTON APPEAL FROM THE RANDOLPH
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. DR-03-154]
V.
HONORABLE KEVIN KING, JUDGE
DAVID TEMPLEMAN
APPELLEE APPEAL DISMISSED
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge
The parties, who were married eleven years and had four children together,
divorced in 2003. David Templeman received custody of the children, and Tina Burton
received standard visitation. In June 2012, the circuit court found that a material change
of circumstances had occurred when Templeman moved to Georgia with the children.
As a result, the court modified Tina Burton’s visitation rights; it also ordered that the
“children shall not be exposed to Anthony Burton.” Burton was Tina’s boyfriend at the
time and is a convicted felon. Tina later married Anthony Burton.
In September 2012, Tina moved again to modify visitation. More than one year
later, in November 2013, David filed a motion for citation and other relief, alleging that
Tina had exposed the children to Anthony Burton in violation of the court’s June 2012
order. In due course, the court convened a hearing on Tina’s request to modify visitation
1
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 101
and David’s motion for citation. The court entered an order in February 2014, which
states in part:
That [David’s] motion for directed verdict is granted as [Tina] failed to
prove the existence of a material change in circumstances, or an agreement
between the parties, which would allow modification of the previous order
herein. Therefore [Tina’s] complaint is denied.
....
The Court reserves a ruling on [David’s] Motion for Citation and Other
Relief.
Tina timely appealed that order to this court, but we cannot yet decide this appeal’s
merits.
Under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) (2013), an order is not final when it
“adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the
parties.” The circuit court decided the visitation issue, but it specifically reserved a ruling
on the contempt issue. And we have no Rule 54(b) certificate that might create the
finality necessary to vest this court with jurisdiction to address the visitation issue that was
decided. See Hambay v. Williams, 335 Ark. 352, 980 S.W.2d 263 (1998). Because the
February 26 order that Tina has appealed is not a final, appealable order we must dismiss
this appeal without prejudice.
Appeal dismissed.
WHITEAKER and VAUGHT, JJ., agree.
Dick Jarboe, for appellant.
No response.
2