Morse v. Austin
2017 Ark. App. 257
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Alexander Morse (unmarried biological father) and Haley Austin (mother) are parents of EAM (born April 2014).
- In March 2016 Austin filed a petition in Marion County to adopt EAM without Morse’s consent, alleging Morse had no contact since 2014 and minimal child-support payments.
- In April 2016 Morse moved to dismiss the adoption petition, arguing statutory noncompliance, Austin’s present inability to obtain adoption, and that Morse had a pending Conway County action registering a North Carolina paternity/visitation judgment.
- The Marion County circuit court denied Morse’s motion to dismiss in July 2016, finding venue and jurisdiction proper and that the petition stated facts on which relief could be granted.
- Morse appealed the denial of dismissal; the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of a final, appealable order because the denial of a motion to dismiss (absent specified exceptions or a 54(b) certification) does not conclude the litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Morse) | Defendant's Argument (Austin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the order denying dismissal is a final, appealable order | Denial is appealable; seeks immediate review | Denial is interlocutory; appeal is premature | Not final; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether the adoption petition complied with statutory requirements | Petition failed to meet statutory mandates; should be dismissed | Petition substantially complied and is actionable | Trial court found petition stated facts for relief; appellate court did not reach merits |
| Whether venue/jurisdiction in Marion County was proper | Conway County registration should control; Marion action should be dismissed | Austin and child are residents of Marion County; venue proper | Trial court found venue and jurisdiction proper; appellate court left this determination intact |
| Whether pending Conway County action bars Marion County adoption proceedings | Conway County paternity/visitation registration requires dismissal here | Conway action had not been served on Austin; does not bar the adoption petition | Court of Appeals did not decide on preclusion; appeal dismissed for lack of finality |
Key Cases Cited
- Bayird v. Floyd, 344 S.W.3d 80 (Ark. 2009) (final-judgment requirement governs appellate jurisdiction)
- City of Corning v. Cochran, 84 S.W.3d 439 (Ark. 2002) (final order must conclude rights or end litigation)
- Univ. of Ark. for Med. Scis. v. Adams, 117 S.W.3d 588 (Ark. 2003) (denial of motion to dismiss is generally not immediately appealable)
- Ark. State Claims Comm’n v. Duit Constr. Co., 445 S.W.3d 496 (Ark. 2014) (exceptions to nonappealability of denial-of-dismissal orders are narrow)
- Harrill & Sutter, PLLC v. Farrar, 2011 Ark. 181 (Ark. 2011) (Rule 54(b) certification required for immediate appeal of nonfinal orders)