Ellis v. Ellis
2016 Ark. App. 411
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Mike and Denee Ellis married in 1996 and had two minor children; Mike filed for divorce in July 2009.
- At filing Mike conceded Denee was the appropriate custodial parent; the parties litigated property division and other issues at a multi-day 2011 trial.
- The circuit court entered a divorce decree (June 20, 2011) that expressly did not resolve custody, support, alimony, or property division and retained jurisdiction.
- The court entered a visitation order (August 19, 2011) setting Mike’s visitation schedule but it did not expressly name a custodial parent.
- After several posttrial steps, the court entered orders on February 11, 2015 (child support and property division) and April 27, 2015 (attempted final disposition with a Rule 54(b) certificate); both orders were appealed.
- The record still omitted an express written custody award and did not definitively dispose of Mike’s 2012 contempt motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction because custody was decided | Mike treats the 2011 visitation order and subsequent rulings as effectively adjudicating custody (so appealable) | Denee contends the custody issue was not separately adjudicated in a final order | Held: No jurisdiction — no written order expressly naming the custodial parent; custody remains pending |
| Whether contempt motion was finally disposed | Mike argues the court orally denied contempt at the April 6, 2015 hearing and the April 27 order adopts bench rulings | Denee relies on the April 27 order as resolving posttrial matters | Held: No jurisdiction — contempt motion was not specifically addressed in writing; oral ruling not effective until reduced to writing |
| Whether the Rule 54(b) certificate made the April 27 order appealable | Mike contends the Rule 54(b) certificate permits immediate appeal due to hardship/prejudice | Denee relies on the court’s certificate to support appellate jurisdiction | Held: No — the Rule 54(b) certificate is conclusory and lacks the specific factual findings required to permit immediate appeal |
| Whether child-support calculation errors could be reviewed now | Mike challenges child-support figures used by the court | Denee defends the court’s calculation | Held: Court dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction and did not decide merits; appellate court notes the trial court likely failed to follow the required mathematical formula and recommends review |
Key Cases Cited
- Liberty Life Ins. Co. v. McQueen, 364 Ark. 367, 219 S.W.3d 172 (finality for appealability rule)
- Moses v. Hanna’s Candle Co., 353 Ark. 101, 110 S.W.3d 725 (appellate courts may raise jurisdictional finality sua sponte)
- Alphin v. Alphin, 90 Ark. App. 71, 204 S.W.3d 103 (custody awards are modifiable)
- Walker v. Torres, 83 Ark. App. 135, 118 S.W.3d 148 (modification requires prior custody order to compare material change)
- Nat’l Home Centers, Inc. v. Coleman, 370 Ark. 119, 257 S.W.3d 862 (oral bench rulings are ineffective until reduced to writing)
- Edwards v. Ark. Dep’t Human Servs., 2015 Ark. 402, 474 S.W.3d 58 (Rule 54(b) requires specific factual findings of hardship or injustice for immediate appeal)