2015 Ark. App. 147
Ark. Ct. App.2015Background
- Owen and Mandy Kelly married in 1994 and divorced by decree entered March 24, 2014; two children were born of the marriage (born 1999 and 2002).
- The decree awarded Mandy custody and found her monthly needs were $16,659.
- The decree ordered Owen to pay $7,528/month child support and $9,131/month alimony beginning April 1, 2014, with automatic alimony increases tied to each child attaining majority (to $11,293 when the older child turned 18 and to $16,659 when the younger turned 18) and corresponding reductions/termination of child support.
- The decree also provided the marital home would remain on the market until July 15, 2014; if sold earlier, proceeds would be split; if unsold by July 15 it would be sold on the courthouse steps with net proceeds split equally.
- Owen appealed arguing the trial court abused its discretion by ordering automatic future alimony increases without any showing of future increased needs.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the decree was not a final, appealable order due to the contingent method for disposing of the marital home and the absence of a Rule 54(b) certification; the court expressed no opinion on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering automatic future alimony increases without a showing of future need | Owen: automatic increases lacked any showing of future increased needs and thus were an abuse of discretion | Mandy: (defended decree) the court’s awards and structure were proper as entered | Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; court did not reach the merits |
| Whether the decree is a final, appealable order | Owen pursued appellate review of the decree as final | Mandy argued the decree was proper and subject to appeal (implicit) | Decree not final because disposition of the marital home was contingent; no Rule 54(b) certificate; appeal dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. Carroll, 2013 Ark. App. 286 (an appeal requires a final judgment or decree)
- Wadley v. Wadley, 2010 Ark. App. 733 (conditional or contingent orders are generally not final or appealable)
- Shafer v. Estate of Shafer, 2010 Ark. App. 476 (orders that contemplate further judicial action are not appealable)