Artie Green's Auto Repair & Body Shop, Inc. v. Johnson
2017 Ark. App. 323
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellants (Artie Green’s Auto Repair & Body Shop, Inc., and Arthur Green, Jr.) appealed the circuit court’s denial of their petition declaring Ark. Code Ann. § 16-66-221 unconstitutional.
- Under § 16-66-221, after a default judgment, a judgment debtor must provide a verified schedule of property; appellee Johnson moved to compel compliance and sought sanctions and fees after appellants failed to comply.
- Appellants argued the statute intruded on the Arkansas Supreme Court’s exclusive authority over procedure under Amendment 80 § 3 (i.e., it was procedural and therefore unconstitutional).
- The circuit court denied appellants’ petition, holding § 16-66-221 is substantive because it creates a creditor’s right to information and a corresponding duty on the debtor, and thus does not violate separation of powers; any procedural aspects were covered by Ark. R. Civ. P. 81.
- The Court of Appeals sua sponte examined finality and determined the circuit court’s order did not dispose of the appellee’s pending motion to compel or include a Rule 54(b) certificate, so the order was not final.
- Because the order adjudicated fewer than all claims/rights and lacked a Rule 54(b) certification, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without prejudice for lack of a final order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 16-66-221 violates Amendment 80 by intruding on the Supreme Court’s exclusive rulemaking authority | Green: § 16-66-221 is procedural and thus impermissibly encroaches on rulemaking authority | Johnson: The statute creates substantive rights/duties (creditor’s right to information and debtor’s duty) and is therefore valid | Circuit court upheld the statute as substantive; Court of Appeals did not reach merits on appeal due to lack of final order |
| Whether the circuit court’s order was a final, appealable judgment | Implied: appellants treated the declaration of constitutionality as appealable final order | Johnson: pending motion to compel and sanctions remained; order was not final | Court of Appeals held the order was not final because it did not dispose of the pending motion and lacked Rule 54(b) certification; appeal dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Brasfield v. Murray, 96 Ark. App. 207 (2006) (Rule 54(b) requires certification for partial final judgments to be immediately appealable)
- State v. Greenville Stone & Gravel Co., 122 Ark. 151 (1916) (deciding a motion that involves constitutionality does not automatically make the order final)
- Thomas v. City of Fayetteville, 2012 Ark. 120 (2012) (appeal dismissed where circuit court granted possession but left just-compensation issue undecided, creating nonfinal judgment)
- Tucker v. Lake View School Dist. No. 25 of Phillips County, 323 Ark. 693 (1996) (order declaring system unconstitutional was nonfinal where other claims and remedies remained pending)
- Ellis v. Ellis, 2016 Ark. App. 411 (2016) (court must dispose in writing of pending contempt/motions for finality absent a valid Rule 54(b) certificate)