Brown v. United Bank
2014 Ark. App. 643
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- This is an Arkansas foreclosure appeal in the Court of Appeals, Division III, arising from Benton County Circuit Court No. CV-12-2280.
- On January 23, 2014, the circuit court entered three orders: denial of the motion to set aside the sale, a hearing on surplus funds, and confirmation of the foreclosure sale.
- The January 31, 2014 order amended the January 23 order to add Shane Miller as a purchaser.
- The Browns executed a promissory note and mortgage to United Bank in 2012, defaulted, and faced a foreclosure complaint and counterclaims.
- An agreed decree in October 2013 awarded judgment to United Bank and provided a 60-day tender period; failure to tender allowed a Commissioner’s sale.
- The December 16, 2013 sale proceeded without the Browns or their counsel attending; KSBD, LLC and Shane Miller purchased the property.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is a final, appealable order to support jurisdiction | Browns argued the January 31, 2014 order finalizes rights. | Only the January 31 amended order is final; the January 23 order is not final. | We lack jurisdiction; January 23 order is not final and January 31 amended order was not designated. |
| Whether Rule 3(e) notice of appeal designated the final order | Notice adequately designated the order being appealed. | Notice did not designate the January 31, 2014 amended order. | Defective notice; not substantial compliance; appeal dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Budget Tire & Supply Co. v. First Nat’l Bank of Fort Smith, 51 Ark. App. 188 (1995) (decrees confirming foreclosure are final, but need proper designation of final order)
- Robinson v. Lindsey, 2014 Ark. App. 287 (Ark. App. 2014) (finality governs appellate jurisdiction; dismissal for nonfinal orders)
- Racine v. Nelson, 2011 Ark. 50 (Ark. 2011) (Rule 3(e) designation required for notice of appeal)
- Jewell v. Moser, 2012 Ark. 267 (Ark. 2012) (substantial compliance possible where order is clear from context)
- Duncan v. Duncan, 2009 Ark. 565 (Ark. 2009) (scrivener’s error may excuse defects if order is clear)