Mancia v. Bennett
2016 Ark. App. 553
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In 2007 Mancia hired attorney Bruce Bennett for criminal representation.
- On July 29, 2015, Mancia filed a pro se complaint alleging legal malpractice and fraud and sought reimbursement of $10,000 plus punitive damages.
- Bennett moved to dismiss under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing Mancia’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
- Trial court entered an order on January 19, 2016 dismissing the complaint as time-barred; that order was later vacated so the court could consider Mancia’s response.
- On February 4, 2016 the court entered a new, final order dismissing the complaint with prejudice.
- Mancia’s pro se notice of appeal (filed Feb. 10, 2016) designated only the vacated Jan. 19 order, not the Feb. 4 final order; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction for failure to substantially comply with Ark. R. App. P. 3(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the notice of appeal properly designated the order appealed from under Ark. R. App. P. 3(e) | Mancia appealed the dismissal and (by filing the notice) intended to appeal the Court’s final decision | Bennett argued the notice designated only the vacated Jan. 19 order and did not identify the Feb. 4 final dismissal order | The notice designated only the vacated order; because the final Feb. 4 order was not designated, the notice failed to substantially comply with Rule 3(e), so the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal |
| Whether a misidentification of the order can constitute substantial compliance with Rule 3(e) | Implicitly, Mancia could claim a scrivener’s error or misidentification | Court distinguished scrivener’s-error scenarios: here the notice designated a non‑existent (vacated) order and did not reference the final order | The court held this was not a mere misidentification and did not satisfy substantial compliance; dismissal was required |
Key Cases Cited
- Lindsey v. Green, 369 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2010) (lack of effective notice of appeal deprives appellate court of jurisdiction)
- Todd v. State, 465 S.W.3d 435 (Ark. App. 2015) (discussing requirement to designate the order appealed from in the notice of appeal)