388 S.W.3d 897
Ark.2011Background
- Centennial Bank appeals an interlocutory order denying its motion to compel arbitration.
- Tribuilt Construction Group moved to dismiss claiming Centennial’s notice of appeal was untimely; the Arkansas Court of Appeals certified and we accepted jurisdiction to decide the motion to dismiss.
- Tribuilt sued NISHA and Centennial on various claims; the circuit court ordered arbitration of the NISHA–Tribuilt contract dispute, while Tribuilt’s tort claims against NISHA and Centennial were not ordered to arbitration.
- Centennial filed multiple motions to compel arbitration; the court denied these motions, and Centennial filed a notice of appeal.
- The pivotal issue is whether Centennial’s January 4, 2010 motion was an amendment or a motion for reconsideration, affecting whether the appeal deadline was extended.
- The court held the January 4 motion was an amendment to the December 21, 2009 motion, but amendments to postorder motions do not extend the time to file an appeal, so Centennial’s March 19, 2010 notice of appeal was untimely and the appeal is dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the notice of appeal timely under Rule 4? | Centennial argues timely due to amendment extending time. | Tribuilt contends untimely because no extension governs this collateral motion. | Untimely; appeal dismissed. |
| Was the January 4, 2010 motion an amendment or a motion for reconsideration? | Amendment to preserve arbitration issues. | New motion for reconsideration. | Amendment; did not extend time. |
| Does an amended postorder motion extend the time to file an appeal under Rule 4(b)? | If amended, time may be extended. | Amendments to postorder motions do not extend time. | No extension; time not extended. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stacks v. Marks, 354 Ark. 594, 127 S.W.3d 483 (2003) (timeliness is essential to obtain jurisdiction)
- Jefferson v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 356 Ark. 647, 158 S.W.3d 129 (2004) (timeliness governs appellate jurisdiction)
- Reeve v. Carroll Cnty., 373 Ark. 584, 285 S.W.3d 242 (2008) (timing rules for extending appeal periods)
- Davidson Props., LLC v. Summers, 368 Ark. 283, 244 S.W.3d 674 (2006) (substance over label to determine motion type)
- Williams v. Hudson, 320 Ark. 635, 898 S.W.2d 465 (1995) (amendment relates back to original filing)
- Slaton v. Slaton, 330 Ark. 287, 956 S.W.2d 150 (1997) (posttrial motion treatment and amendment analysis)
- Thomas v. McElroy, 243 Ark. 465, 420 S.W.2d 530 (1967) (substance governs filings over labels)
- Ellis v. Ark. State Highway Comm’n, 2010 Ark. 196, 363 S.W.3d 321 (2010) (postorder amendments not extending appeal time)