Midwest Terminals of Toledo, Inc. v. Palm
2011 Ark. 81
Ark.2011Background
- Midwest Terminals filed a Motion for Rule on Clerk after Palm prevailed at trial in Sebastian County.
- Clerk refused to lodge the appellate record; Midwest Terminals sought an order directing lodging.
- Judgment was entered Oct. 28, 2009, awarding Palm $972,000 plus interest, costs, and fees; a post-judgment period followed with various motions.
- On Jan. 5, 2010, the circuit court awarded prejudgment interest, attorney’s fees, and costs to Palm, rejecting the feud over paragraph thirteen of the employment agreement.
- Midwest Terminals amended its appeal to include the Jan. 5 order; a further seven-month extension was sought and granted to lodge the record by July 23, 2010.
- Clerk refused to file the July 23 record as untimely; the court held the seven-month window barred extension and denied the Rule on Clerk, while addressing finality and collaterality of fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of lodge-by date for record | Palm argues record timely; extension beyond seven months not permitted. | Midwest Argues extension allowed by Rule 5(b)(3) within seven months. | Record tendered untimely; extension denied. |
| Finality of the order for purposes of appeal | Palm contends final judgment/ amended judgment were final, with collateral fee orders not affecting finality. | Midwest contends January 5, 2010 order was the final appealable event. | Attorney’s fee orders are collateral and do not affect finality. |
| Whether attorney’s fees are collateral or merits-based | Palm maintains fees are collateral to merits; final judgment unaffected. | Midwest relies on Budinich to argue including fees in merits if tied to contract. | Fees are collateral; Budinich does not override Arkansas precedent. |
| Effect of other posttrial motions on appeal deadline | Palm argues motions to amend or for new trial do not alter finality issues. | Midwest contends these motions would typically extend time if timely filed. | Neither timely under Rule 4(b)(1); no extension triggered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (U.S. 1988) (finality rule: attorney’s fees custody as collateral matters; affects appeal timing)
- Harold Ives Trucking Co. v. Pro Transportation, Inc., 341 Ark. 735 (2000) (finality requires dispositive completion; fees collateral)
- Nettleton Sch. Dist. v. Owens, 329 Ark. 367 (1997) (attorney’s fees awarded as collateral matter)
- Marsh & McLennan of Ark. v. Herget, 321 Ark. 180 (1995) (fees are collateral to judgment on merits)
- Pledger v. Bosnick, 306 Ark. 45 (1991) (fees as collateral matter)
- Ellis v. Ark. State Highway Comm’n, 2010 Ark. 196 (2010) (further Arkansas authority on finality and collateral issues)