Background

• Appellant Darrell Brown, Sr. appeals a probate division order modifying distribution of net remaining Pan Am Flight 103 settlement proceeds paid by Libya to heirs of Charlotte Stinnett and holding Brown not entitled to any attorney’s fee due to disbarment.
• Appellant challenges only the circuit court’s order striking his response as sanction for discovery violations; he did timely appeal the distribution order, but not the strike order.
• The Arkansas Court of Appeals certified the case as one of first impression involving timeliness and jurisdiction for appeal of an order striking a response in the probate context.
• Appellees contend the strike-order is appealable and Brown’s notice of appeal was untimely under Rule 4(a), with Rule 2(a)(4) permitting an appeal from a strike-order.
• The Supreme Court held Brown’s notice of appeal from the strike-order was untimely and dismissed the appeal with prejudice, noting that timely appeal is governed by Rule 4(a) regardless of Rule 2(a) appealability.
• The court distinguished interlocutory appeal rules from final-judgment review and overruled Ray Townsend Farms on timeliness, applying Rule 4(a) first to determine jurisdiction.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Sloan v. Ark. Rural Med. Practice Loan & Scholarship Bd., 369 Ark. 442 (2007) (jurisdictional prerequisite; timeliness governs appeal)
• U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Milburn, 352 Ark. 144 (2003) (Rule 4 governs timeliness; Rule 2 governs appealability)
• Ray Townsend Farms, Inc. v. Smith, 91 Ark. App. 22 (2005) (overruled; distinguish interlocutory vs. final-review concepts)
• Bell v. Wilson, 298 Ark. 415 (1989) (legacy Rule 2 analysis cited; not controlling for Rule 2(a) timeliness)
• Blunt v. Cartwright, 342 Ark. 662 (2000) (illustrates intermediate-order concept under Rule 2(b))
• Union National Bank v. Barnhart, 308 Ark. 190 (1992) (class-notice/notice considerations under interim orders)