Harrelson v. King, 538 S.W.3d 885

The Harrelsons owned property adjacent to King; King allegedly built an encroaching fence and removed some of the Harrelsons’ trees.
After a bench trial, the circuit court (Feb. 7, 2017) ordered removal of the fence and awarded the Harrelsons $42,530 in tree-damage damages.
King filed a postjudgment motion under Ark. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60 on Feb. 21, 2017 (within ten days, excluding weekends).
Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 4(b)(1) provides that certain posttrial motions filed within ten days are deemed denied by operation of law if the trial court neither grants nor denies them within 30 days, and that deemed denial divests the circuit court of jurisdiction to act further.
The trial court held a hearing on March 30, 2017 and entered an order on April 11, 2017 reducing damages to $13,730.
The court of appeals held that King’s motion was deemed denied on March 23, 2017, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act thereafter, the April 11 order was void, and the original Feb. 7 judgment awarding $42,530 was reinstated.

Issue	Harrelsons' Argument	King’s Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear and grant King’s posttrial Rule 59/60 motion after 30 days elapsed without a ruling	The Harrelsons did not seek relief from the Feb. 7 judgment; they contend the April 11 order reducing damages was invalid because the court lacked jurisdiction under Ark. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)	King sought and obtained relief via Rule 60/59 after the court’s 30-day window, arguing relief was proper	The court held the posttrial motion was deemed denied on March 23, 2017; the trial court lost jurisdiction to act thereafter, so the April 11 order was void and the original judgment was reinstated
Whether the Harrelsons’ April 18, 2017 notice of appeal was timely to challenge the Feb. 7 judgment	The Harrelsons’ notice was filed within 30 days after the deemed denial date, making an appeal of the Feb. 7 order timely; they did not seek relief from that order	King’s posttrial motions complicated the appeal timeline but did not validate the April 11 modification	The notice of appeal was timely as to the original Feb. 7 judgment, but the court dismissed the appeal only insofar as it sought to uphold the void April 11 order

Murchison v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Ill., 367 Ark. 166 (court held that a timely Rule 60 motion is deemed denied under Ark. R. App. P. 4(b)(1) if not acted on within 30 days, and that the circuit court loses jurisdiction to rule thereafter)
Whitmer v. Sullivent, 373 Ark. 327 (clarified computation of the ten-day filing period for postjudgment motions under Ark. R. App. P. 4(b)(1))
Duncan v. Duncan, 377 S.W.3d 431 (Ark. App.) (held that an order entered after the court lacked jurisdiction under Rule 4(b)(1) is void)