586 S.W.3d 694
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Brinkley School District's first amended complaint was dismissed by the circuit court on November 8, 2018.
- On November 15, within 10 days of the dismissal, Brinkley filed a Rule 60(a) postjudgment motion; because the court did not rule within 30 days, that motion was deemed denied by operation of Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 4(b)(1).
- Brinkley filed an amended Rule 60(a) motion on January 30, 2019; the circuit court expressly denied that amended motion on February 4, 2019.
- Brinkley filed notices of appeal on February 14 and February 20, 2019—more than 30 days after the original motion was deemed denied but within 30 days of the February 4 denial of the amended motion.
- Appellees moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely under Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 4(b); the court addressed whether Rule 4(b)’s deemed-denied timing or Rule 60’s 90-day period controls and whether an amended motion filed after a parent motion was deemed denied can revive appellate timing.
- The Court of Appeals held Rule 4(b) governs once a postjudgment motion is timely filed within 10 days, an amended postjudgment motion cannot extend the Rule 4(b) deadlines, and Brinkley’s notices were untimely; the appeal was dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal when a postjudgment Rule 60(a) motion is filed within 10 days | Brinkley: appeal timely because amended Rule 60 motion was denied within Rule 60’s 90‑day period, and notices filed within 30 days of that denial | Appellees: Rule 4(b)’s deemed‑denied rule controls; notice had to be filed within 30 days of the deemed denial of the original motion | Held: Rule 4(b) governs; Brinkley’s notices were untimely and appeal dismissed |
| Effect of an amended Rule 60 motion filed after the original motion was deemed denied | Brinkley: amended motion’s denial (Feb 4) permitted a timely appeal | Appellees: amended motion cannot revive or extend deadlines once the parent motion was deemed denied | Held: amendment does not avoid Rule 4(b) deadlines; it cannot resurrect an already‑deemed‑denied motion |
| Whether Rule 60’s 90‑day internal period supersedes Rule 4(b) timing when both could apply | Brinkley: Rule 60’s 90‑day period should allow appraisal of the amended motion’s denial | Appellees: permitting Rule 60 to override Rule 4(b) would subvert the deemed‑denied framework | Held: Rule 60 does not supersede Rule 4(b) once Rule 4(b) is triggered; courts consistently apply Rule 4(b) in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Moore, 2017 Ark. App. 619, 535 S.W.3d 651 (applied Rule 4(b) to a Rule 60(a) motion filed within ten days and dismissed appeal for failure to file notice after deemed denial)
- Dale v. White, 2018 Ark. App. 172, 545 S.W.3d 812 (held Rule 4(b) does not apply when the postjudgment motion was filed more than ten days after the judgment)
- Muhammad v. Burl, 2019 Ark. App. 52, 571 S.W.3d 39 (reiterated that Rule 4(b) applies only if the postjudgment motion was filed within ten days)
- Williams v. Hudson, 320 Ark. 635, 898 S.W.2d 465 (an amended posttrial motion relates back to the original filing)
- Centennial Bank v. Tribuilt Constr. Grp., LLC, 2011 Ark. 245, 388 S.W.3d 897 (approved relation‑back principle for amended postjudgment motions)
- Murchison v. Safeco Ins. Co., 367 Ark. 166, 238 S.W.3d 11 (dismissed appeal under Rule 4 analysis but discussed Rule 60’s 90‑day period in dicta)
- Henson v. Wyatt, 373 Ark. 315, 283 S.W.3d 593 (dismissed appeal under Rule 4(b); noted Rule 60 discussion in Murchison)
- City of Centerton v. City of Bentonville, 375 Ark. 8, 289 S.W.3d 53 (applied Rule 4(b) to dismiss appeal from posttrial motion)
- Seay v. C.A.R. Trans. Brokerage Co., 366 Ark. 527, 237 S.W.3d 48 (supports dismissal with prejudice where notice of appeal is untimely)